AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp 3590–3598 | Cite as

Drug Use and Sexual HIV Transmission Risk Among Men Who have Sex with Men and Women (MSMW), Men Who have Sex with Men only (MSMO), and Men Who have Sex with Women Only (MSWO) and the Female Partners of MSMW and MSWO: A Network Perspective

  • Typhanye V. Dyer
  • Maria R. Khan
  • Milagros Sandoval
  • Abenaa Acheampong
  • Rotrease Regan
  • Melissa Bolyard
  • Pedro Mateu-Gelabert
  • Samuel R. Friedman
Original Paper

Abstract

We described drug use, sex risk, and STI/HIV among men who have sex with men and women (MSMW) and their female partners. We used the Network, Norms and HIV/STI Risk among Youth (NNAHRAY) study to evaluate drug use, sex risk, and biologically-confirmed STI/HIV in (1) MSMW and men who had sex with men only (MSMO) versus men who had sex with women only (MSWO) and (2) female partners of MSMW versus female partners of MSWO (N = 182 men, 152 women). MSMW versus MSWO had 30 to 60% increased odds of substance use, over twice the odds of multiple partnerships, and almost five times the odds of sex trade and HIV infection. Female partners of MSMW versus female partners of MSWO had approximately twice the odds of substance use and 1.5–2 times the odds of multiple partnerships and sex trade. Interventions should address STI/HIV risk among MSMW and their female partners.

Keywords

HIV Substance use MSMW Women Social network analysis 

Resumen

Describimos el uso de drogas, riesgo sexual y enfermedades de transmisión sexual/VIH entre hombres que tienen sexo con hombres y mujeres (HSHM) y sus parejas femeninas. Utilizamos el estudio “Network and Norms and HIV/STI Risk in Youth” (NNAHRAY) para evaluar el uso de drogas, el riesgo sexual, y enfermedades de transmisión sexual/VIH confirmadas biológicamente en [1] HSHM y hombres que tenían sexo con hombres únicamente (HSHU) versus hombres que tuvieron relaciones sexuales con mujeres únicamente (HSMU) y [2] parejas femeninas de HSHM versus parejas femeninas de HSMU (N = 182 hombres, 152 mujeres). HSHM vs HSMU tuvieron entre un 30 y un 60% de mayor probabilidad de uso de sustancias, más del doble de probabilidades de múltiples asociaciones sexuales, y casi cinco veces más probabilidades de comercio sexual e infección por VIH. Las parejas femeninas de HSHM versus parejas femeninas de HSMU tenían aproximadamente el doble de probabilidades de uso de sustancias y 1,5 a 2 veces las probabilidades de múltiples asociaciones sexuales y el comercio sexual. Las intervenciones para prevención deben abordar el riesgo de enfermedades de transmisión sexual y VIH entre HSHM y sus parejas femeninas.

Palabras clave

VIH consumo de sustancias HSHM mujeres análisis de redes sociales 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by: R01 DA13128, R01 DA028766, DP1 DA034989, P30 DA11041, R03 DA03713101 and NIMHD LRP. This manuscript does not necessarily represent views of NIDA or NIMHD.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for this secondary analysis of NNAHRAY data was obtained from the University of Maryland Population Research Center Institutional Review Board. Approval for NNAHRAY was granted by the NDRI Institutional Review Board in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Atlanta, GA 2009 Contract No.: 04.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oster AM, Wiegand RE, Sionean C, et al. Understanding disparities in HIV infection between black and white MSM in the United States. AIDS. 2011;25(8):1103–12 Epub 2011/04/21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diaz T, Chu SY, Frederick M, et al. Sociodemographics and HIV risk behaviors of bisexual men with AIDS: results from a multistate interview project. AIDS. 1993;7(9):1227–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mimiaga MJ, Reisner SL, Cranston K, et al. Sexual mixing patterns and partner characteristics of black MSM in Massachusetts at increased risk for HIV infection and transmission. J Urban Health. 2009;86(4):602–23 Epub 2009/05/26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Montgomery JP, Mokotoff ED, Gentry AC, Blair JM. The extent of bisexual behaviour in HIV-infected men and implications for transmission to their female sex partners. AIDS Care. 2003;15(6):829–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dyer T, Regan R, Wilton L, et al. Differences in substance use, psychosocial characteristics and HIV-related sexual risk behavior between black men who have sex with men only (BMSMO) and black men who have sex with men and women (BMSMW) in six US cities. J Urban Health. 2013:1–13.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Friedman MR, Kurtz SP, Buttram ME, et al. HIV risk among substance-using men who have sex with men and women (MSMW): findings from South Florida. AIDS Behav. 2013:1–9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maulsby C, Sifakis F, German D, Flynn CP, Holtgrave D. HIV risk among men who have sex with men only (MSMO) and men who have sex with men and women (MSMW) in Baltimore. J Homosex. 2013;60(1):51–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedman M. HIV Among men who have sex with men and women (MSMW): prevalence estimates, acquisition and transmission risks, and implications for interventions. University of Pittsburgh; 2013.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maulsby C, Sifakis F, German D, Flynn CP, Holtgrave D. Partner characteristics and undiagnosed HIV seropositivity among men who have sex with men only (MSMO) and men who have sex with men and women (MSMW) in Baltimore. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(3):543–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tieu H-V, Spikes P, Patterson J, et al. Sociodemographic and risk behavior characteristics associated with unprotected sex with women among black men who have sex with men and women in New York City. AIDS Care. 2012;24(9):1111–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harawa NT, McCuller WJ, Chavers C, Janson M. HIV risk behaviors among Black/African American and Hispanic/Latina female partners of men who have sex with men and women. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(3):848–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singh SK, Sharma N, Malviya A, Mondal S. “Down-Low”: overlapping sexual risks of bisexual MSM influencing Women’s vulnerability to STI/HIV in Nepal. Sex Cult. 2014;18(2):331–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crosby RA, Mena L, Geter A, Hickson D. Similarities and differences in sexual risk behaviors between young black MSM who do and do not have sex with females. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(4):717–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ellen JM, Greenberg L, Willard N, et al. Cross-sectional survey comparing HIV risk behaviours of adolescent and young adult men who have sex with men only and men who have sex with men and women in the US and Puerto Rico. Sex Transm Infect. 2015;91(6):458–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reilly KH, Neaigus A, Wendel T, Marshall DM IV, Hagan H. Bisexual behavior among male injection drug users in New York City. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(2):405–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friedman MR, Kurtz SP, Buttram ME, et al. HIV risk among substance-using men who have sex with men and women (MSMW): findings from South Florida. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(1):111–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dyer TP, Regan R, Pacek LR, Acheampong A, Khan MR. Psychosocial vulnerability and HIV-related sexual risk among men who have sex with men and women in the United States. Arch Sex Behav. 2014:1–13.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dyer TP, Regan R, Wilton L, et al. Differences in substance use, psychosocial characteristics and HIV-related sexual risk behavior between black men who have sex with men only (BMSMO) and black men who have sex with men and women (BMSMW) in six US cities. J Urban Health. 2013;90(6):1181–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zule WA, Bobashev GV, Wechsberg WM, Costenbader EC, Coomes CM. Behaviorally bisexual men and their risk behaviors with men and women. J Urban Health. 2009;86:48–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Operario D, Smith CD, Arnold E, Kegeles S. Sexual risk and substance use behaviors among African American men who have sex with men and women. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(3):576–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Montgomery JP, Mokotoff E, Gentry A, Blair J. The extent of bisexual behaviour in HIV-infected men and implications for transmission to their female sex partners. AIDS Care. 2003;15(6):829–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stokes JP, Vanable P, McKirnan DJ. Comparing gay and bisexual men on sexual behavior, condom use, and psychosocial variables related to HIV/AIDS. Arch Sex Behav. 1997;26(4):383–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shearer K, Khosropour C, Stephenson R, Sullivan PS. Do bisexual men tell their female partners about having male partners? Results from a national online HIV prevention survey in the United States. Int J Sex Health. 2012;24(3):195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schrimshaw EW, Siegel K, Downing MJ Jr. Sexual risk behaviors with female and male partners met in different sexual venues among non-gay-identified, nondisclosing MSMW. Int J Sex Health. 2010;22(3):167–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Benoit E, Koken JA. Perspectives on substance use and disclosure among behaviorally bisexual Black men with female primary partners. J Ethn Subst Abuse. 2012;11(4):294–317.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Friedman SR, Flom PL, Kottiri BJ, et al. Drug use patterns and infection with sexually transmissible agents among young adults in a high-risk neighbourhood in New York City. Addiction. 2003;98(2):159–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gorbach PM, Murphy R, Weiss RE, Hucks-Ortiz C, Shoptaw S. Bridging sexual boundaries: men who have sex with men and women in a street-based sample in Los Angeles. J Urban Health. 2009;86(1):63–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mutchler MG, Bogart LM, Elliott MN, et al. Psychosocial correlates of unprotected sex without disclosure of HIV-positivity among African-American, Latino, and White men who have sex with men and women. Arch Sex Behav. 2008;37(5):736–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tieu H-V, Liu T-Y, Hussen S, et al. Sexual networks and HIV risk among black men who have sex with men in 6 US cities. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(8):e0134085.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barman-Adhikari A, Begun S, Rice E, Yoshioka-Maxwell A, Perez-Portillo A. Sociometric network structure and its association with methamphetamine use norms among homeless youth. Soc Sci Res. 2016.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Birkett M, Kuhns LM, Latkin C, Muth S, Mustanski B. The sexual networks of racially diverse young men who have sex with men. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44(7):1787–97.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harawa N, Wilton L, Wang L, et al. Types of female partners reported by black men who have sex with men and women (MSMW) and associations with intercourse frequency, unprotected sex and HIV and STI prevalence. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(8):1548–59.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Harawa NT, McCuller WJ, Chavers C, Janson M. HIV Risk behaviors among black/African American and Hispanic/Latina female partners of men who have sex with men and women. AIDS Behav. 2012:1–8.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Friedman SR, Bolyard M, Mateu-Gelabert P, et al. Some data-driven reflections on priorities in AIDS network research. AIDS Behav. 2007;11(5):641–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Khan MR, Bolyard M, Sandoval M, et al. Social and behavioral correlates of sexually transmitted infection–and HIV-discordant sexual partnerships in Bushwick, Brooklyn, New York. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 2009;51(4):470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Khan MR, Epperson MW, Mateu-Gelabert P, et al. Incarceration, sex with an STI-or HIV-infected partner, and infection with an STI or HIV in Bushwick, Brooklyn, NY: a social network perspective. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 12. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2011.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Spikes PS, Purcell DW, Williams KM, et al. Sexual risk behaviors among HIV-positive black men who have sex with women, with men, or with men and women: implications for intervention development. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(6):1072–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Purcell DW, Mizuno Y, Smith DK, et al. Incorporating couples-based approaches into HIV prevention for gay and bisexual men: opportunities and challenges. Arch Sex Behav. 2014;43(1):35–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Crepaz N, Tungol-Ashmon MV, Vosburgh HW, Baack BN, Mullins MM. Are couple-based interventions more effective than interventions delivered to individuals in promoting HIV protective behaviors? A meta-analysis. AIDS Care. 2015;27(11):1361–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsThe University of Maryland, 2234FF School of Public HealthCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Population HealthNew York University School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.National Development and Research Institutes Inc.New YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of EpidemiologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  5. 5.Division of Infectious DiseasesEmory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA
  6. 6.Office of Institutional Research, Planning and EffectivenessEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations