You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 89, Issue 5
  • Measures of risk do not discriminate between MSM tested for HIV within the previous 6 months and MSM tested 6–12 months previously: data from Glasgow, Scotland, in 2010

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Measures of risk do not discriminate between MSM tested for HIV within the previous 6 months and MSM tested 6–12 months previously: data from Glasgow, Scotland, in 2010
  1. Christina Knussen1,
  2. Lisa M McDaid2,
  3. Paul Flowers1
  1. 1 Department of Psychology and Allied Health Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
  2. 2 MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Christina Knussen, Department of Psychology and Allied Health Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK; c.knussen{at}gcu.ac.uk

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2013-051133

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.

    The UK and USA guidelines recommend at least annual HIV testing for men who have sex with men (MSM), with more frequent testing for those at risk. Although measures of risk and regularity of HIV testing are essential for evaluating interventions, these are not yet standardised across the UK.1 Risk criteria could include recent unprotected anal intercourse (UAI), a high number of partners, unknown partners and recent sexually transmitted infection (STI).2 From self-report data collected in Glasgow with a bar-based sample (excluding non-Scottish …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors CK drafted this letter. All authors contributed.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval Granted by the Psychology Ethics Subcommittee at Glasgow Caledonian University.

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