1 / 19

Intimate Partner Violence and Condom Negotiation among Gay and Bisexual Men

Intimate Partner Violence and Condom Negotiation among Gay and Bisexual Men. Catherine Finneran, MPH Rob Stephenson, PhD Rollins School of Public Health Emory University Atlanta, GA, USA. In 2010:. HIV among MSM: A Syndemic Theory. Prevalence of IPV among MSM (Lifetime). 100. 0. 100.

zuriel
Download Presentation

Intimate Partner Violence and Condom Negotiation among Gay and Bisexual Men

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Intimate Partner Violence and Condom Negotiation among Gay and Bisexual Men Catherine Finneran, MPH Rob Stephenson, PhD Rollins School of Public Health Emory University Atlanta, GA, USA

  2. In 2010:

  3. HIV among MSM: A Syndemic Theory

  4. Prevalence of IPV among MSM (Lifetime) 100 0 100 100 0 0 0 100 Sexual Emotional/Psychological Physical Any 73% 38% 13% 5% 30% 12% 78% 29%

  5. ? IPV HIV Substance Abuse STIs Mental Health Unprotected Anal Sex

  6. IPV HIV Unprotected Anal Sex Condom Negotiation

  7. How does recent experience of Intimate Partner Violence impact gay and bisexual men’s self-reported condom negotiation efficacy?

  8. Qualitative + Quantitative • Largest ever undertaken (n=1,101) • IPV & HIV Risk • New MSM-specific IPV definition

  9. Sample Characteristics (n=745)

  10. Physical & Sexual Monitoring Controlling HIV-Related Emotional

  11. Reporting of IPV-GBM IPV

  12. Low Condom Negotiation Efficacy

  13. Bivariate Analyses p < 0.003 p < 0.000 p < 0.000 p < 0.078 p < 0.000 p < 0.005

  14. Any: 1.62 (1.09, 2.39) Physical: 2.22 (1.46, 3.36) Monitoring: 1.30 (0.84, 2.02) Controlling: 2.43 (1.44, 4.11) HIV: 1.61 (0.91, 2.85) Emotional: 2.05 (1.38, 3.05) 5.0 0.75 3.0 1.0 2.0 4.0

  15. Limitations • Cross-sectional sample of urban-based MSM • Analysis does not consider if facing multiple forms of IPV compounds risk • Condom negotiation with last sex partner may not reflect overall condom negotiation skills

  16. Conclusion • Recent experience of IPV is associated with reduced self-reported condom negotiation efficacy among gay and bisexual men • Non-physical, non-sexual forms of IPV may also impact condom negotiation • Low condom negotiation efficacy may be a pathway through which IPV increases HIV risk

  17. Recommendations • Gay, bisexual, and other MSM should be screened for Intimate Partner Violence during routine HIV counseling and testing • See: Stephenson et al., “Towards the development of an Intimate Partner Violence screening tool for gay and bisexual men,” Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, in press

  18. Intimate Partner Violence and Condom Negotiation among Gay and Bisexual MenPosters: Wednesday 12:30-14:30IPV and Sexual Risk (WEPE553)Minority Stress and IPV (WEPE552) Catherine Finneran, MPH cafinne@emory.edu Rob Stephenson, PhD rbsteph@emory.edu

More Related