Objectives The authors explored whether respondent-driven sampling (RDS) can generate a more diverse sample of black men who have sex with men (MSM) than time-location sampling (TLS) by comparing sample characteristics accrued by each method in two independent studies.
Methods The first study exclusively recruited black MSM through RDS (N=256), while the second recruited MSM through TLS including a subsample of black MSM (N=69). Crude and adjusted point estimates and 95% CIs were calculated for socio-demographic and behavioural characteristics, HIV prevalence and prevalence of unrecognised infections, and were compared using the Z-test.
Results The samples differed significantly regarding all socio-demographic and some behavioural characteristics. Compared with TLS, RDS estimated higher proportions of older, less educated, poorer, currently homeless and self-identified bisexual black MSM. Participants in RDS were less likely to have a main partner, had fewer male partners, were more likely to have a female partner and have both male and female partners, and reported greater methamphetamine, crack and heroin use. Prevalence of HIV and unrecognised infections were slightly higher among RDS participants.
Conclusions The RDS sample comprised black MSM who were more diverse with respect to socio-demographic characteristics and may also be at higher risk for HIV. Thus, RDS has advantages in reaching higher risk black MSM who are most hidden from intervention research and service delivery. Future studies of black MSM using RDS could use steering strategies to recruit younger participants and other subgroups of greatest interest to public health and prevention.
- Men who have sex with men
- hidden population
- gay men
- sexual behaviour
- HIV testing
- HIV clinical care
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Funding CW was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) (grant number: K99MH093201). The ASSORT! study was funded by a grant from NIH/NIMH (grant number: R01MH077509).
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was provided by the University of California San Francisco's Committee on Human Research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.