Table 1

Period prevalence of selected STIs (1) among males attending GUM clinics in England in 2011 by sex worker status and (2) among male sex workers attending GUM clinics in England in 2011 by migrant status

(1)Male sex workersOther male attendeesAssociation with being a male sex worker
Diagnosed (n)Tested (n)Period prevalence (%)Diagnosed (n)Tested (n)Period prevalence (%)p ValueOR (adjusted*)95% CIp Value
Chlamydia‡11345724.749 330514 9169.6<0.0012.87(2.21 to 3.72)<0.001
Gonorrhoea7844717.414 155509 7312.8<0.0012.21(1.61 to 3.01)<0.001
Syphilis114212.62532450 7000.6<0.0011.04(0.48 to 2.23)0.93
HIV§143833.72605440 7080.6<0.0013.37(1.86 to 6.02)<0.001
(2)UK-born male sex workersMigrant male sex workersAssociation with being a migrant male sex worker
Diagnosed (n)Tested (n)Period prevalence (%)Diagnosed (n)Tested (n)Period prevalence (%)p ValueOR (adjusted†)95% CIp Value
Chlamydia‡5721826.14517226.20.992.20(1.08 to 4.49)0.03
Gonorrhoea2821013.33917022.90.020.90(0.45 to 1.83)0.78
Syphilis41982.061573.80.310.75(0.12 to 4.55)0.76
HIV§51892.791306.90.070.96(0.27 to 3.38)0.95
  • Significant differences (p<0.05) are highlighted in bold.

  • *Adjusting for age, ethnicity, migrant status, sexual orientation, clinic location (inner, outer or outside London) and index of multiple deprivation.

  • †Adjusting for age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, clinic location (inner, outer or outside London) and index of multiple deprivation.

  • ‡Code suffixes to identify oral or rectal chlamydia infections were introduced to GUMCAD in 2011. However, as the use of these suffixes was not consistent across all clinics in 2011 the data presented here includes all chlamydia infections. In future, it will be possible to provide information on the site of infection.

  • §New HIV diagnoses in 2011.

  • GUM, genitourinary medicine; STI, sexually transmitted infection.