| Title |
Enema Use Among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Behavioral Epidemiologic Study with Implications for HIV/STI Prevention
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Sexual Behavior, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10508-013-0203-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Syed W. Noor, B. R. Simon Rosser |
| Abstract |
Enema use or douching is a risk factor for HIV/STI in men who have sex with men (MSM). However, few studies have explored enema use practices. We examined the frequency of enema use, type of products used, and reasons to use and not to use before and after receptive anal sex in a large sample of MSM (N = 4,992) recruited from 16 U.S. cities. Through online surveys, we examined personal, behavioral, and environmental factors associated with enema use. Most (52 %) participants reported having douched at least once and 35 % reported douching within the last 3 months. While most (88 %) reported enema use before receptive anal sex, 28 % douched after receptive anal sex. Most participants (65 %) used water to douche, 24 % added salt, soap, and/or antibacterial products to water, and 30 % reported using commercially available products. Being a man of color, HIV-positive, diagnosed with an STI, identifying as "versatile" in sex, and having more than two unprotected sex partners were significantly associated with recent enema use. Douching behavior appears closely associated with HIV/STI risk. Douching with water may be a concern since it may increase HIV/STI infection by damaging the epithelium. Development and promotion of a non-damaging, non-water based enema specifically for use in anal sex are recommended. In addition, the seemingly contradictory recommendations that water-based lubricant is recommended for anal sex but water-based enemas are dangerous need to be reconciled into a single consistent message. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philippines | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 45 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 13% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 13% |
| Psychology | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 02 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,413,890
of 25,623,883 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#717
of 3,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,239
of 321,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Sexual Behavior
#8
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,623,883 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
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 321,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.