论文部分内容阅读
目的了解网络型与非网络型男男性行为人群(MSM)HIV、梅毒、丙肝感染率及其相关的行为特征,为开展有针对性的干预工作提供建议。方法通过滚雪球的方式招募MSM人群进行面对面的问卷调查和采集血样检测HIV、梅毒、丙肝。对比分析网络型与非网络型MSM人群的一般人口学、行为特征以及HIV、梅毒、丙肝感染率。结果共调查了网络型MSM587人和非网络型MSM358人。网络型MSM人群较非网络型MSM年龄较小、文化程度较高、未婚比例较大、艾滋病防治知识知晓率高、自我同性性取向认同度好。非网络型MSM最近6个月与男性发生肛交时发生无保护性性行为的比例、买性史、卖性史以及与女性发生性行为的比例均高于网络型MSM(70.6%vs61.3%)、(6.2%vs1.4%)、(14.4%vs3.4%)、(32.4%vs10.7%)。非网络型MSM最近1次以及最近6个月与女性发生性行为时,安全套使用率低于网络型MSM(28.4%vs54.0%)和(21.6%vs46.0%)。网络型与非网络型MSM人群HIV感染率都较高,分别为14.7%(4.5%～24.8%)和17.6%(0.6%～34.6%),但差异无统计学意义。自报性病感染率非网络型MSM高于网络型MSM(22.1%vs16.7%,χ2=4.22,P=0.04)。结论网络型与非网络型MSM人群HIV感染率均较高。非网络型较网络型MSM人群艾滋病防治知识知晓率低、与男性发生肛交时无保护性性行为比例更高、与女性发生性行为时安全套使用率更低,这部分人群感染艾滋病的危险性更大,是艾滋病由MSM人群向一般人群传播的重要桥梁人群,因此,探索针对网络型与非网络采取不同的干预措施将是当前MSM人群艾滋病防治的迫切任务。
Objective To understand the prevalence of HIV, syphilis and hepatitis C infection among MSM and non-network MSM and its related behavioral characteristics and to provide suggestions for targeted intervention. METHODS: The MSM population was recruited by snowball to conduct face-to-face questionnaires and collect blood samples to detect HIV, syphilis and hepatitis C virus. The demographic, behavioral characteristics and rates of HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis C infection were compared between online and non-network MSM populations. Results A total of MSM587 networked and non-networked MSM358 were investigated. Compared with non-network-based MSM, the network-based MSM population has a relatively younger age, a higher education level, a larger proportion of unmarried people, a high awareness rate of AIDS prevention and control knowledge, and a good self-same sex orientation. The proportion of unprotected sex, sex history, sex history and sexual behavior with women who had anal intercourse with men during the last 6 months in non-web-based MSM was higher than that of web-based MSM (70.6% vs61.3% ), (6.2% vs 1.4%), (14.4% vs 3.4%), (32.4% vs 10.7%). Condom use was lower in non-internet MSM (28.4% vs 54.0%) and (21.6% vs46.0%) when compared with women in the last and the last 6 months. The prevalence of HIV infection in both MSM and non-MSM was 14.7% (4.5% -24.8%) and 17.6% (0.6% -34.6%), respectively, but the difference was not statistically significant. Self-reported STIs were higher for non-network MSM than for networked MSM (22.1% vs 16.7%, χ2 = 4.22, P = 0.04). Conclusion The prevalence of HIV in both MSM and non-MSM patients is high. The awareness rate of HIV / AIDS prevention and control among non-cyber-type MSM is lower than that of non-cyber-MSM. There is a higher proportion of unprotected sexual intercourse with men and the lower rate of condom use when women have sexual intercourse. This part of the population is even more at risk of HIV / AIDS It is an important bridge for AIDS transmission from the MSM population to the general population. Therefore, exploring different interventions for both networked and non-networked populations will be an urgent task for AIDS prevention and control in the current MSM population.