Objective

To examine the HIV risk behaviours of men who have sex with men only (MSMO) and men who have sex with men and women (MSMW), aged 12-24 years, in five US cities and in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Methods

Data were collected through four annual cross-sectional anonymous surveys at community venues and included questions about sexual partnerships, sexual practices including condom use and substance use. Demographic and risk profiles were summarised for both groups.

Results

A total of 1198 men were included in this analysis, including 565 MSMO and 633 MSMW. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups for many risk factors examined in multivariable models. MSMW were more likely to identify as bisexual, be in a long-term relationship, have a history of homelessness, have ever used marijuana, have ever been tested for HIV and to have been tested for HIV within the past 6 months. MSMW may be more likely to ever exchange sex for money and ever have a sexually transmitted infection than MSMO.

Conclusions

MSMW were more likely to report several markers of socioeconomic vulnerability or behaviours associated with increased risk for HIV than MSMO. MSMW contribute to HIV prevalence in the USA, and better understanding of the risk profile of this group is essential to understand heterosexual HIV transmission. MSMW, particularly those who identify as bisexual or questioning, may feel uncomfortable participating in programmes that are designed for gay-identified men. Therefore, prevention strategies need to target distinct subgroups that compose the population of MSM.

Objective

To examine the HIV risk behaviours of men who have sex with men only (MSMO) and men who have sex with men and women (MSMW), aged 12-24 years, in five US cities and in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Methods

Data were collected through four annual cross-sectional anonymous surveys at community venues and included questions about sexual partnerships, sexual practices including condom use and substance use. Demographic and risk profiles were summarised for both groups.

Results

A total of 1198 men were included in this analysis, including 565 MSMO and 633 MSMW. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups for many risk factors examined in multivariable models. MSMW were more likely to identify as bisexual, be in a long-term relationship, have a history of homelessness, have ever used marijuana, have ever been tested for HIV and to have been tested for HIV within the past 6 months. MSMW may be more likely to ever exchange sex for money and ever have a sexually transmitted infection than MSMO.

Conclusions

MSMW were more likely to report several markers of socioeconomic vulnerability or behaviours associated with increased risk for HIV than MSMO. MSMW contribute to HIV prevalence in the USA, and better understanding of the risk profile of this group is essential to understand heterosexual HIV transmission. MSMW, particularly those who identify as bisexual or questioning, may feel uncomfortable participating in programmes that are designed for gay-identified men. Therefore, prevention strategies need to target distinct subgroups that compose the population of MSM.

Purpose

Hispanic/Latino adolescents and young adults are disproportionately impacted by the HIV/AIDS epidemic; yet little is known about the best strategies to increase HIV testing in this group. Network-based approaches are feasible and acceptable means for screening at-risk adults for HIV infection, but it is unknown whether these approaches are appropriate for at-risk young Hispanics/Latinos. Thus, we compared an alternative venue-based testing (AVT) strategy with a social and sexual network-based interviewing and HIV testing (SSNIT) strategy.

Methods

All participants were Hispanics/Latinos aged 13-24 years with self-reported HIV risk; they were recruited from 11 cities in the United States and Puerto Rico and completed an audio computer-assisted self-interview and underwent HIV screening.

Results

A total of 1,596 participants (94.5% of those approached) were enrolled: 784 (49.1%) through AVT and 812 (50.9%) through SSNIT. HIV infection was identified in three SSNIT (.37%) and four AVT (.51%) participants (p = .7213).

Conclusions

Despite high levels of HIV risk, a low prevalence of HIV infection was identified with no differences by recruitment strategy. We found overwhelming support for the acceptability and feasibility of AVT and SSNIT for engaging and screening at-risk young Hispanics/Latinos. Further research is needed to better understand how to strategically implement such strategies to improve identification of undiagnosed HIV infection.