Characteristics of research-related HIV testing programmes contribute to detection of more HIV infections

Abstract

HIV prevalence estimates from bathhouse testing programmes differ widely, ranging from 3% to 11%. The observed difference may be a consequence of whether the programme was part of a research project or a community-based programme. A research-funded testing programme was offered at a bathhouse between May 2001 and December 2002. A local community-based organization began a testing programme in July 2006 at the same bathhouse; the data for this analysis cover the period July 2006 through December 2007. County-wide HIV prevalence estimates were available across the two time periods (i.e. 2001-2002 and 2006-2007). The research-funded testing programme recruited fewer men but identified more positive individuals (10.7% of those testing in the research programme) than were identified among men who tested in the area clinics (3.8% of those men who have sex with men [MSM] testing throughout the county in the same time period). However, the community-based testing programme identified about the same proportion of positive MSM (2.6%) as county clinics (2.7%) in the same time period. In conclusion, results confirmed that even in the same venue, a community-based HIV testing programme identified a similar proportion of positive MSM as the area clinics; however, the research-funded programme identified appreciably more. Incentives may contribute to the difference.

Presence of an HIV Testing Program Lowers the Prevalence of Unprotected Insertive Anal Intercourse Inside a Gay Bathhouse Among HIV-Negative and HIV-Unknown Patrons

“…These results are not intended to assess that primary purpose, and the lack of a robust effect on sexual risk behavior inside the bathhouse should not be considered a reason to drop or reduce the presence of these programs at bathhouses. Even if the effect on UAI is minimal, it is still likely that these programs meet their primary aims, as a number of other studies have shown (Bingham et al, 2008; Daskalakis et al, 2009; Huebner et al, 2010; Huebner et al, 2006; Spielberg et al, 2005; Woods et al, 2010a). Moreover, it should be noted that in a bathhouse serving a large metropolitan area (particularly one that never closes), the yearly clientele can number in the tens of thousands, so even the modest reduction in sexual risk behavior suggested by this analysis may prevent thousands of potential risk events annually.…”

“…On-site testing has shown demonstrable value by revealing unidentified infections and reaching populations of men who might not otherwise test (Bingham et al, 2008; Daskalakis et al, 2009; Huebner et al, 2010; Huebner et al, 2006; Mayer et al, 2011; Spielberg et al, 2005; Woods et al, 2010a). In addition, such programs coincide with the “National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States” (2010) because they bring HIV screening and surveillance to a subgroup of MSM who are at even higher risk for HIV transmission and target unidentified infections (Collins & Diallo, 2010; Millett et al, 2010).…”

HIV Prevention in Gay Bathhouses and Sex Clubs Across the United States

“…Recent research has focused on the challenges of implementing HIV testing programs in clubs,12-15 while other studies have shown that men at clubs will avail themselves of testing when it is available on site7,16-18 and that such in-club testing has been associated with reduced risk behavior over a 3-month period 19,20. The scientific literature indicates a wide range of HIV prevention programs, and services have been initiated in clubs to try to reach men at risk with important HIV prevention services and information 4,7,14,16-21. In order to determine the extent to which HIV prevention is implemented in clubs across the United States, we interviewed club managers.…”