ObjectivesThis study estimates HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Jamaica and explores social determinants of HIV infection among MSM.DesignAn island-wide cross-sectional survey of MSM recruited by peer referral and outreach was conducted in 2011. A structured questionnaire was administered and HIV/STI tests done. We compared three groups: MSM who accepted cash for sex within the past 3 months (MSM SW), MSM who did not accept cash for sex (MSM non-SW), and MSM with adverse life events (ever raped, jailed, homeless, victim of violence or low literacy).ResultsHIV prevalence among 449 MSM was 31.4%, MSM SW 41.1%, MSM with adverse life events 38.5%, 17 transgender MSM (52.9%), and MSM non-SW without adverse events 21.0%. HIV prevalence increased with age and number of adverse life events (test for trend P < 0.001), as did STI prevalence (P = 0.03). HIV incidence was 6.7 cases/100 person-years (95% CI: 3.74, 12.19). HIV prevalence was highest among MSM reporting high-risk sex; MSM SW who had been raped (65.0%), had a STI (61.2%) and who self identified as female (55.6%). Significant risk factors for HIV infection common to all 3 subgroups were participation in both receptive and insertive anal intercourse, high-risk sex, and history of a STI. Perception of no or little risk, always using a condom, and being bisexual were protective.ConclusionHIV prevalence was high among MSM SW and MSM with adverse life events. Given the characteristics of the sample, HIV prevalence among MSM in Jamaica is probably in the range of 20%. The study illustrates the importance of social vulnerability in driving the HIV epidemic. Programs to empower young MSM, reduce social vulnerability and other structural barriers including stigma and discrimination against MSM are critical to reduce HIV transmission.

IntroductionHIV prevention strategies often include outreach to female sex workers at social venues identified as places where people meet new sexual partners. Patrons and staff at these venues may include female sex workers, their clients, as well as others who have high rates of new sexual partnerships. Few studies have compared HIV/STI among venue-based and general populations, across types of venues, or by sub-group of the venue population. Program planners often assume that the prevalence of infection is highest among female sex workers and considerably lower among other people at these venues, but there are few empiric studies assessing the prevalence of infection by sex worker status and type of venue.MethodsIn 2011, we used the PLACE method to identify public venues where people meet new sexual partners across Jamaica. The study team visited all venues with reported sex work as well as a 10% random sample of other venues and subsequently interviewed and tested a probability sample of 991 venue patrons and workers for HIV and other STI.ResultsCommunity informants identified 1207 venues. All venues where sex work was reported (735 venues) and a random sample of the remainder (134 of 472) were selected for onsite visits. Of these, 585 were found and operational. At a stratified random sample of venues, survey teams interviewed and tested 717 women and 274 men. 394 women reported recent sex work and 211 of these women reported soliciting clients on the street. Women exchanging sex for money were more likely to be infected with HIV (5.4% vs 1.0%; OR = 5.6, 95% CI = 1.8,17.3) or syphilis (11.7% vs. 5.8%, OR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.7,4,0) than other women, but not significantly more likely to be infected with gonorrhea (8.4% vs 7.8%; OR = 1.1,95% CI = 0.6,1.9), chlamydia (16.2% vs 21.6%;OR = 0.7,95% CI = 0.5,1.0) or trichomoniasis (23.0% vs 17.0%, OR = 1.5,95% CI = 0.9,2.2). Women at venues were more likely to report sex work and multiple partners than women interviewed in a 2008 national population-based household survey commissioned by the Ministry of Health.ConclusionsIn Jamaica, although the highest HIV prevalence was among street-based sex workers, the risk of HIV and STI extends to men and women at high risk venues, even those who do not self-identify as sex workers. Findings confirm the appropriateness of outreach to all men and women at these venues.

receiving the results stressful, even when the results were negative. Testing made them more anxious during their pregnancies than they had been during previous ones (even though one family had been in a Middle Eastern war zone during previous pregnancies).Women need to be well informed before they consent to a potentially traumatic testing procedure.3 The importance of counselling, however, resides in what the patient grasps, not in what the doctor thinks that he or she has communicated. In one large study 72% of counselled women knew that matemal blood is taken for the test but 33% were unaware that further tests are offered if the result is positive, 62% did not know that the test was for Down's syndrome, and 68% were unaware that most women with positive results have normal babies.4 Can consent be truly informed in these circumstances?The screening process is confusing and stressful. Whether any putative benefit outweighs the extra distress for 700000 women each year is open to question.' Shouldn't our cardinal rule be first do no harm?

No abstract