Search

BackgroundMen who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately affected by human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and there is evidence that this population is participating in increasingly risky sexual behavior. These changes are occurring in the context of new modes of online social interaction—many MSM now report first meeting their sex partners on the Internet. Better monitoring of key behavioral indicators among MSM requires the use of surveillance strategies that capitalize on these new modes of interaction. Therefore, we developed an annual cross-sectional behavioral survey of MSM in the United States, the American Men's Internet Survey (AMIS). ObjectiveThe purpose of this paper was to provide a description of AMIS methods. In addition we report on the first cycle of data collection (December 2013 through May 2014; AMIS-2013) on the same key indicators used for national HIV behavioral surveillance. MethodsAMIS-2013 recruited MSM from a variety of websites using banner advertisements or email blasts. Adult men currently residing in the United States were eligible to participate if they had ever had sex with a man. We examined demographic and recruitment characteristics using multivariable regression modeling (P

Introduction: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a key HIV prevention technology, and is a pillar of a comprehensive HIV prevention approach for men who have sex with men (MSM). Because there have been no national data to characterize trends in the PrEP continuum in the United States, overall and for key demographic groups of MSM, we aimed to describe the extent to which PrEP awareness, willingness and use changed over time, overall and for specific groups of MSM critical for HIV prevention (e.g. Black and Hispanic MSM, younger MSM, MSM in rural areas and MSM without health coverage). Methods: The American Men's Internet Survey (AMIS) is an annual survey of US MSM conducted in the United States among MSM aged [greater than or equal to]15 years since 2013. We analysed data on trends in elements of the PrEP continuum (awareness, willingness and use of PrEP) in a sample of 37,476 HIV-negative/unknown status MSM from December 2013 through November 2017. We evaluated trends in continuum steps overall and among demographic subgroups using Poisson models with Generalized Estimating Equations. For 2017 data, we used logistic regression to compare the prevalence of PrEP use among demographic groups. Results: Overall, 51.4% (n = 19,244) of AMIS respondents were PrEP-eligible across study years. Between 2013 and 2017, PrEP awareness increased from 47.4% to 80.6% willingness to use PrEP increased from 43.9% to 59.5% and PrEP use in the past 12 months increased from 1.7% to 19.9%. In 2017, use of PrEP was lower for men who were younger, lived outside of urban areas, and lacked health insurance; PrEP use was not different among Black, Hispanic and white MSM. Conclusions: Our data show progress in use of PrEP among US MSM, but also reveal mismatches between PrEP use and epidemic need. We call for additional support of PrEP initiation, especially among young, non-urban and uninsured MSM. Black and Hispanic MSM report levels of PrEP use no different from white MSM, but given higher HIV incidence for Black and Hispanic MSM, parity in use is not sufficient for epidemic control or health equity. Keywords: PrEP; men who have sex with men; behavioural surveillance; health disparities; PrEP willingness; online surveys; trend analysis; biomedical prevention, 1 | INTRODUCTION Men who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately impacted by the HIV epidemic in the United States, accounting for about 2% of the US population [1] [...]

Abstract Background Methods for describing one's confidence in the available evidence are useful for end-users of evidence reviews. Analysts inevitably make judgments about the quality, quantity consistency, robustness, and magnitude of effects observed in the studies identified. The subjectivity of these judgments in several areas underscores the need for transparency in judgments. Discussion This paper introduces a new system for rating medical evidence. The system requires explicit judgments and provides explicit rules for balancing these judgments. Unlike other systems for rating the strength of evidence, our system draws a distinction between two types of conclusions: quantitative and qualitative. A quantitative conclusion addresses the question, "How well does it work?", whereas a qualitative conclusion addresses the question, "Does it work?" In our system, quantitative conclusions are tied to stability ratings, and qualitative conclusions are tied to strength ratings. Our system emphasizes extensive a priori criteria for judgments to reduce the potential for bias. Further, the system makes explicit the impact of heterogeneity testing, meta-analysis, and sensitivity analyses on evidence ratings. This article provides details of our system, including graphical depictions of how the numerous judgments that an analyst makes can be combined. We also describe two worked examples of how the system can be applied to both interventional and diagnostic technologies. Summary Although explicit judgments and formal combination rules are two important steps on the path to a comprehensive system for rating medical evidence, many additional steps must also be taken. Foremost among these are the distinction between quantitative and qualitative conclusions, an extensive set of a priori criteria for making judgments, and the direct impact of analytic results on evidence ratings. These attributes form the basis for a logically consistent system that can improve the usefulness of evidence reviews.