↓ Skip to main content

Gay Men’s Use of Condoms With Casual Partners Depends on the Extent of Their Prior Acquaintance

Overview of attention for article published in AIDS and Behavior, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Gay Men’s Use of Condoms With Casual Partners Depends on the Extent of Their Prior Acquaintance
Published in
AIDS and Behavior, November 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10461-011-0092-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evelien Rouwenhorst, Kylie-Ann Mallitt, Garrett Prestage

Abstract

Unprotected anal intercourse with casual partners (UAIC) is the strongest predictor of HIV incidence among gay men. Familiarity between sex partners has been associated with likelihood to engage in UAIC, but the decision to use condoms with partners who are previously acquainted is complex and multifaceted. Using data from the Pleasure and Sexual Health survey 2009, we investigated the association between aspects of familiarity with casual partners and disclosure of HIV serostatus. Compared with occasions when they engaged in protected anal intercourse (PAIC), when men engaged in UAIC they were more likely to report having previously met their partners (PAIC 45.9%; UAIC 54.9%), knowing them very well (PAIC 7.9%; UAIC 19.7%), and having previously had sex with them (PAIC 32.2%; UAIC 44.8%) (McNemar P < 0.001). Men were also more likely to disclose their HIV serostatus to their casual partners on occasions of UAIC, were more confident they knew their partner's HIV serostatus and trusted them more. Overall, UAIC was associated with both the broad concept of 'familiarity' (composed of elements of prior acquaintance and trust) and HIV disclosure. When men engage in UAIC without some prior familiarity, disclosure of HIV serostatus, or confidence and trust in their partners, they are probably at greater risk than on occasions when they engage in UAIC with partners with whom they do have these qualities. However, for some men, their trust in knowing specific details about their partners may not always be well-informed or reliable. These different circumstances are challenging for HIV prevention work.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Researcher 5 12%
Other 4 10%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 29%
Social Sciences 8 19%
Psychology 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 July 2019.
All research outputs
#5,153,043
of 25,248,775 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#759
of 3,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,775
of 251,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#10
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,248,775 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 251,208 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.