You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 88, Issue 4
  • Willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and the likelihood of decreased condom use are both associated with unprotected anal intercourse and the perceived likelihood of becoming HIV positive among Australian gay and bisexual men

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Behaviour
Original article
Willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and the likelihood of decreased condom use are both associated with unprotected anal intercourse and the perceived likelihood of becoming HIV positive among Australian gay and bisexual men
  1. Martin Holt1,
  2. Dean A Murphy1,2,
  3. Denton Callander1,
  4. Jeanne Ellard1,
  5. Marsha Rosengarten3,
  6. Susan C Kippax4,
  7. John B F de Wit1,5
  1. 1National Centre in HIV Social Research, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
  2. 2Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations, Sydney, Australia
  3. 3Department of Sociology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK
  4. 4Social Policy Research Centre, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
  5. 5Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Dr Martin Holt, National Centre in HIV Social Research, The University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia; m.holt{at}unsw.edu.au

Abstract

Objectives To investigate willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and the likelihood of decreased condom use among Australian gay and bisexual men.

Methods A national, online cross-sectional survey was conducted in April to May 2011. Bivariate relationships were assessed with χ2 or Fisher's exact test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess independent relationships with primary outcome variables.

Results Responses from 1161 HIV-negative and untested men were analysed. Prior use of antiretroviral drugs as PrEP was rare (n=6). Just over a quarter of the sample (n=327; 28.2%) was classified as willing to use PrEP. Willingness to use PrEP was independently associated with younger age, having anal intercourse with casual partners (protected or unprotected), having fewer concerns about PrEP and perceiving oneself to be at risk of HIV. Among men who were willing to use PrEP (n=327), only 26 men (8.0%) indicated that they would be less likely to use condoms if using PrEP. The likelihood of decreased condom use was independently associated with older age, unprotected anal intercourse with casual partners (UAIC) and perceiving oneself to be at increased risk of HIV.

Conclusions The Australian gay and bisexual men the authors surveyed were cautiously optimistic about PrEP. The minority of men who expressed willingness to use PrEP appear to be appropriate candidates, given that they are likely to report UAIC and to perceive themselves to be at risk of HIV.

  • Antiretroviral agents
  • condoms
  • HIV
  • health knowledge
  • attitudes
  • practice
  • homosexuality
  • male
  • prevention and control
  • social science
  • prevention
  • gay men
  • sexual health
  • AIDS
  • sexual behaviour
  • attitudes
  • behavioural intervention
  • homosexual

https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2011-050312

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Funding This study was supported by a University of New South Wales GoldStar award. The National Centre in HIV Social Research is supported by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Patient consent The study used an anonymous online survey to collect data. Starting and completing the survey was taken as evidence of consent.

    • Ethics approval The University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.