Search

Minority groups may face additional barriers to vaccination. In April-June 2021, we assessed the level of COVID-19 vaccination and willingness to be vaccinated in a national, online survey of 1280 gay and bisexual men in Australia. Over a quarter of the sample (28.0%) had been partially or fully vaccinated, and 80.0% of the unvaccinated were willing to be vaccinated. Vaccination was independently associated with older age, being university educated, and HIV status (with HIV-positive participants being more likely and untested participants less likely to be vaccinated). Willingness to be vaccinated was independently associated with living in a capital city and being university educated. Those who had lost income or their job due to COVID-19 were less willing to be vaccinated. Our results suggest encouraging COVID-19 vaccination among those with lower levels of health literacy and supporting those who have experienced financial stress because of the pandemic., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Using repeated, national, online, cross-sectional surveys of Australian gay and bisexual men (GBM), we analysed trends related to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Specifically, we analysed trends in PrEP use, willingness to use PrEP, and concern about using PrEP during 2011-2017. We assessed support for GBM using PrEP and willingness to have sex with men taking PrEP between 2015 and 2017. For time-based analyses, we used multivariate logistic regression, controlling for sampling variations over time. We constructed new scales assessing reduced concern about HIV among PrEP users and non-users in 2017, and used multivariate logistic regression to identify independent correlates of PrEP use (vs. non-use). The analyses included 4567 HIV-negative and untested participants (2011-2017). PrEP use increased from 0.5% in 2011 to 25.5% in 2017 (p < 0.001). Willingness to use PrEP increased from 27.9% in 2011 to 36.5% in 2017 (p < 0.001) while concern about using PrEP fell (52.1-36.1%, p < 0.001). Support for GBM using PrEP remained stable (52.5% in 2015, 51.9% in 2017, p = 0.62), and willingness to have sex with men taking PrEP increased from 34.9% in 2015 to 49.0% in 2017 (p < 0.001). In 2017, 22.8% of non-PrEP-users had reduced HIV concern because of PrEP, while 73.6% of PrEP users had reduced HIV concern and greater sexual pleasure because of PrEP. The analysis of PrEP users vs. non-users in 2017 indicated that PrEP users were more sexually active and reported higher risk sexual practices, were more likely to live in New South Wales and Victoria, and to be in full-time employment. They were also more likely to know HIV-positive people and other PrEP users. Diffusion of Innovations theory suggests that future PrEP users in Australia may be less adventurous and require greater reassurance about PrEP's efficacy and legitimacy, to sustain rollout and address current disparities in uptake.

Many gay Australian serodiscordant couples are currently relying on an HIV-positive partner's undetectable viral load (UVL) to practice condomless sex. For these couples, preventing HIV is often considered a mutual responsibility, yet they lack a formally endorsed strategy that helps them navigate 'UVL for prevention' (UfP) as a couple. Drawing on interviews with 21 Australian gay men representing 15 serodiscordant couples, we explored 'the couple' within serodiscordant HIV prevention. In learning to rely on UfP, couples were initially apprehensive as they navigated unfamiliar territory, but their concerns faded over time. Confidence in UfP was facilitated by repeated condomless sex without transmission, consistent test results, and being in a couple framed by trust, commitment, and familiarity. Gay male serodiscordant couples should be encouraged to negotiate clear, spoken 'viral load agreements' (VLAs) if they choose to rely on UfP.

It has been estimated that the majority of global HIV infections among gay and bisexual men (GBM) can be attributed to sex within a committed relationship. In Australia, however, negotiated safety, whereby HIV-negative regular partners agree to discard condoms with each other but commit to consistent condom use with other partners, has been promoted as a key component of the HIV prevention response. We asked GBM recently diagnosed with HIV to describe their relationship to the person they believed to be the source of their infection ('source person'). The majority (66.1%) ascribed their infection to a casual partner. A further 23.3% ascribed their infection to a non-committed and non-romantic partner (or 'fuckbuddy'). Only 10.6% believed they had acquired their HIV from a 'boyfriend' in the context of a committed romantic relationship, and 51.7% of these occurred within the first 3 months following their first sexual contact. Most men (61.5%) believed they had acquired their HIV infection on the first occasion they had sex with the source person. In the Australian context, negotiated safety appears to have minimised infections between regular partners. However, many HIV infections between regular partners may not be in the context of a romantic committed relationship, and yet this distinction between types of regular partners has been all but ignored. Furthermore, in this sample, most infections occurred on the occasion of first meeting, suggesting that the most useful indicators of risk may be the characteristics, contexts, and lengths of sexual partnerships and how sex is negotiated, rather than how GBM categorize their partner. Findings suggest more new HIV infections occur in new partnerships, than in established relationships.

Although there are practices other than condomless anal intercourse that may result in HIV transmission among gay and bisexual men, very little is known about these 'uncommon' transmission explanations. To address this topic, the free text survey responses from 465 HIV positive gay men in Australia were thematically analysed; 123 participants offered uncommon explanations for their seroconversion. Men described several sexual acts they believed led to infection, categorised as adventurous sex (e.g., fisting) and foreplay (e.g., oral sex). Participants also identified mediating factors associated with their seroconversion, either internal (e.g., cum/pre-cum) or external (e.g., sores, illness) to sex. Finally, contextual forces associated with infection were also explored, namely physical spaces (e.g., sex on premises venues) or mental states (e.g., depression). While some uncommon explanations are unlikely to have resulted in HIV transmission, these accounts reveal the diverse and intersecting ways that men attempt to make sense of their seroconversion.

We surveyed Australian gay and bisexual men, assessing belief in HIV treatment as prevention (TasP) and support for early treatment. We identified the characteristics of participants who believed in TasP and supported early treatment using multivariate logistic regression. In 2013, 1316 men participated; 1251 participated in 2015. Belief in TasP increased from 2.6 % in 2013 to 13.1 % in 2015 (p < 0.001). The increase was most noticeable among HIV-positive men (from 9.7 % to 46.2 %). Support for early treatment increased from 71.8 % to 75.3 % (p = 0.02). Belief in TasP was associated with being HIV-positive, having a tertiary education, having recent condomless anal intercourse with casual male partners, and ever having taken post-exposure prophylaxis. Support for early HIV treatment was associated with being younger, living in New South Wales and being in paid employment. We recommend continued monitoring of the growing gap in belief about TasP between HIV-positive men and HIV-negative/untested men.

We assessed attitudes to medicines, HIV treatments and antiretroviral-based prevention in a national, online survey of 1,041 Australian gay men (88.3% HIV-negative and 11.7% HIV-positive). Multivariate analysis of variance was used to identify the effect of HIV status on attitudes. HIV-negative men disagreed with the idea that HIV drugs should be restricted to HIV-positive people. HIV-positive men agreed and HIV-negative men disagreed that taking HIV treatments was straightforward and HIV-negative men were more sceptical about whether HIV treatment or an undetectable viral load prevented HIV transmission. HIV-negative and HIV-positive men had similar attitudes to pre-exposure prophylaxis but divergent views about 'treatment as prevention'.