| Title |
Beyond Condoms: Risk Reduction Strategies Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men Receiving Rapid HIV Testing in Montreal, Canada
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AIDS and Behavior, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10461-016-1344-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joanne Otis, Amélie McFadyen, Thomas Haig, Martin Blais, Joseph Cox, Bluma Brenner, Robert Rousseau, Gilbert Émond, Michel Roger, Mark Wainberg, The Spot Study Group |
| Abstract |
Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) have adapted their sexual practices over the course of the HIV/AIDS epidemic based on available data and knowledge about HIV. This study sought to identify and compare patterns in condom use among gay, bisexual, and other MSM who were tested for HIV at a community-based testing site in Montreal, Canada. Results showed that while study participants use condoms to a certain extent with HIV-positive partners and partners of unknown HIV status, they also make use of various other strategies such as adjusting to a partner's presumed or known HIV status and viral load, avoiding certain types of partners, taking PEP, and getting tested for HIV. These findings suggest that MSM who use condoms less systematically are not necessarily taking fewer precautions but may instead be combining or replacing condom use with other approaches to risk reduction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 15 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 13% |
| Psychology | 7 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 22 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2016.
All research outputs
#16,069,695
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#2,535
of 3,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,541
of 302,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#62
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 302,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.