Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 86, Issue 6, pp 887–901

Estimating Populations of Men Who Have Sex with Men in the Southern United States

  • Spencer Lieb
  • Daniel R. Thompson
  • Shyam Misra
  • Gary J. Gates
  • Wayne A. Duffus
  • Stephen J. Fallon
  • Thomas M. Liberti
  • Evelyn M. Foust
  • Robert M. Malow
  • For the Southern AIDS Coalition MSM Project Team
Article
  • 164 Downloads

Abstract

Population estimates of men who have sex with men (MSM) by state and race/ethnicity are lacking, hampering effective HIV epidemic monitoring and targeting of outreach and prevention efforts. We created three models to estimate the proportion and number of adult males who are MSM in 17 southern states. Model A used state-specific census data stratified by rural/suburban/urban area and national estimates of the percentage MSM in corresponding areas. Model B used a national estimate of the percentage MSM and state-specific household census data. Model C partitioned the statewide estimates by race/ethnicity. Statewide Models A and B estimates of the percentages MSM were strongly correlated (r = 0.74; r-squared = 0.55; p < 0.001) and had similar means (5.82% and 5.88%, respectively) and medians (5.5% and 5.2%, respectively). The estimated percentage MSM in the South was 6.0% (range 3.6–13.2%; median, 5.4%). The combined estimated number of MSM was 2.4 million, including 1,656,500 (69%) whites, 339,400 (14%) blacks, 368,800 (15%) Hispanics, 34,600 (1.4%) Asian/Pacific Islanders, 7,700 (0.3%) American Indians/Alaska Natives, and 11,000 (0.5%) others. The estimates showed considerable variability in state-specific racial/ethnic percentages MSM. MSM population estimates enable better assessment of community vulnerability, HIV/AIDS surveillance, and allocation of resources. Data availability and computational ease of our models suggest other states could similarly estimate their MSM populations.

Keywords

Men who have sex with men HIV/AIDS Epidemic modeling HIV/AIDS surveillance Epidemic monitoring Epidemic monitoring Census 

References

  1. 1.
    CDC. AIDS Weekly Surveillance Report, United States, December 29, 1986. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/pdf/surveillance86.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2009.
  2. 2.
    CDC. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 1996; Vol. 8(no.2).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    CDC. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2006 (2008). Vol. 18.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hall HI, Song R, Rhodes P, et al. Estimation of HIV incidence—United States. JAMA. 2008; 300: 520-529.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prejean J, Song R, An Q, Hall HI. Subpopulation estimates from the HIV incidence surveillance system—United States, 2006. JAMA. 2009; 301: 155-156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Campsmith ML, Rhodes P, Hall HI, Green T. HIV prevalence estimates—United States, 2006. JAMA. 2009; 301: 27-29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Archibald CP, Jayaraman GC, Major C, Patrick DM, Houston SM, Sutherland D. Estimating the size of hard-to-reach populations: a novel method using HIV testing data compared to other methods. AIDS. 2001; 15(suppl): S41-S48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Binson D, Michaels S, Stall R, Coates TJ, Gagnon JH, Catania JA. Prevalence and social distribution of men who have sex with men: United States and its urban centers. J Sex Res. 1995; 32: 245-254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Black D, Gates GJ, Sanders S, Taylor L. Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: evidence from available systematic data sources. Demography. 2000; 37: 139-154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Center for Health Statistics. Sexual behavior and selected health measures: men and women 15-44 years of age, United States, 2002. Advance Data 362, 2005. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2009.
  11. 11.
    Holmberg SD. The estimated prevalence and incidence of HIV in 96 large US metropolitan areas. Am J Public Health. 1996; 86: 642-654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janus S, Janus C. The Janus report on sexual behavior. New York: Wiley; 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laumann EO, Gagnon JH, Michael RT, et al. The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States, chapter 8. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lieb S, Friedman SR, Zeni M, et al. An HIV prevalence-based model for estimating risk populations of injection drug users and men who have sex with men. J Urban Health. 2004; 81: 401-415.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lieb S, Trepka MJ, Thompson DR, et al. Men who have sex with men: estimated population sizes and mortality rates, by race/ethnicity, Miami-Dade County, Florida. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007; 46: 485-490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lieb S, Arons P, Thompson DR, et al. Men who have sex with men: racial/ethnic disparities in estimated HIV/AIDS prevalence at the state and county level, Florida. AIDS Behav. 2008 (e-published June 12, 2008) doi:10.1007/s10461-008-9411-3.
  17. 17.
    Pisani E. Estimating the size of populations at risk for HIV: issues and methods. A joint UNAIDS/IMPACT/Family Health International workshop: report and conclusions. 2003. May 2002. Updated July 2003. Available at http://www.fhi.org/en/HIVAIDS/pub/guide/popsizecontent.htm. Accessed October 26, 2007.
  18. 18.
    Hughes A, Saxton P. Geographic micro-clustering of homosexual men: implications for research and social policy. Soc Pol J New Zealand. 2006; 28: 158-167.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marcus U, Schmidt AJ, Hamouda A, Bochow M. Estimating the regional distribution of men who have sex with men (MSM) based on Internet surveys. BMC Pub Health. 2009; 9: 180-188. Available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/9/180. Accessed June 15, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Southern AIDS Coalition. Southern States Manifesto: Update 2008: HIV/AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Diseases in the South. Accessed December 5, 2008. Available at: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/PDFs/ManifestoUPDATEFINAL071408.source.prod_affiliate.69.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2008.
  21. 21.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Adult HIV/AIDS confidential case report. Form CDC 50.42A, rev. 01/2003:1.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, Summary File 1 (SF 1), Table P.2. Urban and rural. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/. Accessed April 27, 2009.
  23. 23.
    US Census Bureau. American Community Survey, 2005-2007. (Data averaged for the 3 years, 2005-2007.) Available at http://factfinder.census.gov/. Accessed January 3, 2009.
  24. 24.
    US Census Bureau. Midyear 2007 population estimates. Available at http://www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html. Accessed January 3, 2009.
  25. 25.
    Manning SE, Thorpe LE, Ramaswamy C, et al. Estimation of HIV prevalence, risk factors, and testing frequency among sexually active men who have sex with men, aged 18–64 years–New York City, 2002. J Urban Health. 2007; 84: 212-25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Catania JA, Osmond D, Stall RD, et al. The continuing epidemic among men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 907-914.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nyblade LC. Measuring HIV stigma: existing knowledge and gaps. Psychol Health Med. 2006; 11: 335-345.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pathela P, Hajat A, Schillinger J, Blank S, Sell R, Mostashari F. Discordance between sexual behavior and self-reported sexual identity: a population-based survey of New York City men. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 145: 416-25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mays V, Cochran S, Zamudio A. HIV prevention research: are we meeting the needs of African American men who have sex with men? J Black Psychol. 2004; 30: 78-105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    González-López G. Heterosexual fronteras: immigrant Mexicanos, sexual vulnerabilities, and survival. Sex Res Soc Policy. 2006; 3: 67-81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Khan S. Through a window darkly: men who sell sex to men in India and Bangladesh. In Men Who Sell Sex: International Perspectives on Male Prostitution and HIV/AIDS. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1999: 195-210.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Szasz I. Masculine identity and the meanings of sexuality: a review of research in Mexico. Reprod Health Matters. 1998; 6: 97-104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tomas A. Chicano men: A cartography of homosexual identity and behavior. In: Abelove H, Aina Barale M, Halperin DM, eds. The lesbian and gay studies reader. New York: Routledge; 1993: 255-73.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Black D, Gates GJ, Sanders S, Taylor L. Why do gay men live in San Francisco? J Urban Econ. 2002; 51: 54-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bowen AM, Williams ML, Daniel CM, Clayton S. Internet based HIV prevention research targeting rural MSM: feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy. J Behav Med. 2008 (e-published online). doi:10.1007/s10865-008-9171-6.
  36. 36.
    Horvath KJ, Bowen AM, Williams ML. Virtual and physical venues as contexts for HIV risk among rural men who have sex with men. Health Psychol. 2006; 25: 237-242.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lieb S, Trepka MJ, Liberti TM, Cohen L, Romero J. HIV/AIDS patients who move to urban Florida counties following a diagnosis of HIV. J Urban Health. 2006; 83: 1158-1167.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Spencer Lieb
    • 1
  • Daniel R. Thompson
    • 1
  • Shyam Misra
    • 2
  • Gary J. Gates
    • 3
  • Wayne A. Duffus
    • 4
    • 5
  • Stephen J. Fallon
    • 6
  • Thomas M. Liberti
    • 1
  • Evelyn M. Foust
    • 7
  • Robert M. Malow
    • 8
  • For the Southern AIDS Coalition MSM Project Team
  1. 1.Florida Department of HealthBureau of HIV/AIDSTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.District of Columbia Department of HealthWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.The Williams Institute, UCLA School of LawLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.University of South Carolina School of MedicineColumbiaUSA
  5. 5.South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental ControlColumbiaUSA
  6. 6.Skills4, Inc.Ft. LauderdaleUSA
  7. 7.North Carolina Department of Health and Human ServicesRaleighUSA
  8. 8.Florida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations