Search

Background Stigmatization may prompt gay, bisexual, queer and other men who have sex with men (GBQMSM) to avoid or delay HIV testing. There has been little attention to GBQMSMs’ perspectives about how stigma may influence their decisions about whether, where, and how often to get tested for HIV. Methods We conducted nine focus groups with 64 adult GBQMSM in Metropolitan Detroit, including HIV-negative men and people living with HIV (PLWH). Data were thematically analyzed deductively and inductively in three rounds. Results Three themes emerged regarding whether to get tested: (1) Perceived promiscuity, risk perceptions and HIV testing; (2) Fearing sexual rejection; and (3) Fearing friend and family member distancing and rejection. Themes concerning where to get tested included: (4) Conflating HIV testing and diagnosis; and (5) Seeking privacy and safety at specialized services. As for how often to get tested, themes included: (6) Reducing contact with healthcare providers due to intersectional stigma; (7) Responsibility and regular testing; and (8) HIV stigma and testing as routine care. Black participants articulated themes (3), (4), and (6) with greater frequency than other participants. Framing HIV testing as a personal responsibility may have created a “new stigma,” with unintended consequences not observed with “routine healthcare” messaging. Conclusions GBQMSMs’ perspectives indicate the potential for new foci for HIV testing promotion interventions based on stigma-related issues that they deem important. There is a need for interventions to challenge the “promiscuity” stereotype, and to reduce the sexual stigmatization of GBQMSM living with HIV/AIDS—especially online. Provider stigma requires both intervention and continued availability of specialized services. Future stigma-reduction interventions for Black GBQMSM could focus on building family support/acceptance, awareness of multiple testing options, and integrating LGBTQ-related issues into initiatives for racial justice in health care.

Objectives: To determine the vascular access modalities used for hemodialysis, the reasons for choosing them, and determinants of satisfaction with vascular access among patients with end-stage renal disease. Methods: The American Association of Kidney Patients Center for Patient Research and Education used the American Association of Kidney Patients patient engagement database to identify eligible adult hemodialysis patients. Participants completed an online survey consisting of 34 demographic, medical history, and hemodialysis history questions to determine which vascular access modalities were preferred and the reasons for these preferences. Results: Among 150 respondents (mean age 54 years, 53% females), hemodialysis was most frequently initiated with central venous catheter (64%) while the most common currently used vascular access was arteriovenous fistula (66%). Most (86%) patients previously received an arteriovenous fistula, among whom 77% currently used the arteriovenous fistula for vascular access. Older patients and males were more likely to initiate hemodialysis with an arteriovenous fistula. The factors most frequently reported as important in influencing the selection of vascular access modality included infection risk (87%), physician recommendation (84%), vascular access durability (78%), risk of complications involving surgery (76%), and impact on daily activities (73%); these factors were influenced by patient age, sex, and race. Satisfaction with current vascular access was 90% with arteriovenous fistula, 79% with arteriovenous graft, and 67% with central venous catheter. Conclusion: Most end-stage renal disease patients continue to initiate hemodialysis with central venous catheter despite being associated with the lowest satisfaction rates. While arteriovenous fistula was associated with the highest satisfaction rate, there are significant barriers to adoption that vary based on patient demographics and perception of procedure invasiveness.

Sexual agreements are an important HIV risk reduction strategy enacted by men in male-male partnerships. Greater levels of relationship quality have been associated with sexual agreement formation and adherence. However, current evidence supporting the associations between relationship quality and sexual agreements for male dyads is based primarily on the responses of just one partner. Understanding that relationship quality and decisions about sexual agreements are inherently influenced by both partners, the present analysis uses dyadic-level data to examine the sexual agreements among 199 HIV serodiscordant and seroconcordant male dyads (n = 398 individuals). Specifically, the analysis examines measures of love, trust, and conflict style as they relate to (1) the type of agreement established, (2) concordance in agreement reporting, (3) satisfaction with the agreement, and (4) broken agreements. A discrepancy in love between partners was associated with the type of agreement established, whether they reported the same agreement type, and whether one of the partners reported a broken agreement, but it was not associated with either partner's satisfaction with the agreement. A discrepancy in trust was associated with agreement concordance and agreement breaks, but it was not associated with the type of agreement established or satisfaction with the agreement. Lastly, a discrepancy in conflict style was associated with each of the agreement outcomes. Future research and intervention efforts should focus on understanding the behavioral and communication skills necessary for couples to make successful sexual agreements.