7th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention (IAS 2013)


WEPE553 - Poster Exhibition

Recent receipt of intimate partner violence is associated with increased reporting of recent number of anal sex partners among gay and bisexual men

C. Finneran, R. Stephenson

Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Hubert Department of Global Health, Atlanta, United States

Background: Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) may be an underlying phenomenon in the disproportionate HIV burden among gay and bisexual men (GBM). We examine how receipt of various forms of IPV impacts reported number of recent anal sex partners among GBM.
Methods: A venue-recruited sample of 1,020 GBM was surveyed using the IPV-GBM scale, a novel, empirically-derived IPV measure that contains 23 IPV forms in five unique domains: physical/sexual, controlling, monitoring, HIV-related, and emotional. Linear regression models were fitted to outcome of reported number of male anal sex partners in the past six months, with the key covariates of interest being receipt of any IPV form within each IPV domain.
Results: Nearly half the sample (47.8%) reported recent (one-year) receipt of any form of IPV, including physical/sexual IPV (24.8%), monitoring IPV (21.7%), controlling IPV (11.5%), emotional IPV (29.2%), and HIV-related IPV (10.6%). Respondents reported a mean 3.4 (STD: 5.5) male anal sex partners within the past six months and experiencing a mean number of 1.9 (STD: 3.4) forms of IPV within the past year. While receipt any form of IPV was significantly associated with increased reporting of anal sex partners (β=1.07, p< 0.003), the effects of receipt of different domains of IPV varied greatly. Receipt of physical/sexual IPV (β=1.97, p< 0.000), monitoring IPV (β=1.34, p< 0.002), controlling IPV (β=1.66, p< 0.002), emotional IPV (β=1.38, p< 0.000), and HIV-related IPV (β=2.88, p< 0.000) were all positively associated with reported number of anal sex partners.
Conclusion: This novel study demonstrates the influence of IPV on the sexual risk-taking of GBM. Although magnitude varied, IPV was positively associated with an increasing number of reported anal sex partners. While GBM who report more sex partners may be more at-risk for IPV from any one of their partners, the finding that non-sexual forms of IPV (e.g., controlling IPV, monitoring IPV) was also correlated with increased number of sex partners suggests that receipt of IPV may have significant effects on sexual networks of MSM. Understanding how receipt of IPV influences HIV risk can inform programmatic efforts to reduce both IPV prevalence and HIV incidence among GBM.

Back to the Programme-at-a-Glance