Research on sexual violence and related support services access has mainly focused on female victims; there is still a remarkable lack of research on men who experience sexual violence. Research demonstrates that people who both self-identify as men and are members of sexual-orientation minority populations are at higher risk of sexual violence. They are also less likely to either report or seek support services related to such experiences. The present study is an exploratory one aimed at filling the gap in the literature and better understanding how men, both straight and gay as well as cisgender and transgender, conceptualize, understand, and seek help related to sexual violence. A sample of 32 men was recruited on-line and participated in either a one-on-one in-depth interview (N = 19) or one of two focus group discussions (N = 13). All interviews and groups were audiotaped, professionally transcribed and coded using NVivo 9 qualitative software. The present analysis focused on barriers to and facilitators of support service access. Emergent and cross-cutting themes were identified and presented, with an emphasis on understanding what factors may prevent disclosure of a sexual violence experience and facilitate seeking support services and/or professional help. Through this analysis, the research team aims to add knowledge to inform the development of tools to increase service access and receipt, for use by both researchers and service professionals. Although this study contributes to the understanding of the issue of men’s experiences of sexual violence, more research with diverse populations is needed.

Background Though direct acting antivirals (DAAs) promise high cure rates, many providers and payers remain concerned about successful treatment for people who use drugs (PWUD), even among those engaged in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). The efficacy of DAAs among PWUD in real-world settings is unclear. Methods We conducted a cohort study of patients initiating HCV treatment between January 2014 and August 2015 (n = 89) at a primary care clinic in the Bronx, NY. Onsite HCV treatment with DAAs was performed by an HCV specialist, with support from a care coordinator funded by the NYC Department of Health. We identified four categories of drug use and drug treatment: (1) no active drug use/not receiving OAT (defined as non-PWUD); (2) no active drug use/receiving OAT; (3) active drug use/not receiving OAT; and (4) active drug use/receiving OAT. The primary outcome was SVR at 12 weeks post-treatment. Results Overall SVR rates were 95% (n = 41/43) for non-PWUD and 96% (n = 44/46) for patients actively using drugs and/or receiving OAT [p = 0.95]. There were no differences in SVR rates by drug use or drug treatment category. Compared to non-PWUD, those with no active drug use/receiving OAT had 100% SVR (n = 15/15; p = 1.0), those actively using drugs/not receiving OAT had 90% SVR (n = 9/10; p = 0.47), and those actively using drugs/receiving OAT had 95% SVR (20/21; p = 1.0). Conclusion Regardless of active drug use or OAT, patients who received DAA therapy at an urban primary care clinic achieved high HCV cure rates. We found no clinical evidence to justify restricting access to HCV treatment for patients actively using drugs and/or receiving OAT.

No abstract