论文部分内容阅读
目的了解广西男男性接触者接受艾滋病干预服务的情况,评估干预效果,并分析其影响因素,为更有效地进行下一步的干预服务提供科学依据。方法采用便利抽样的方法,通过男男性行为人群各种活动场所以及网络进行招募调查对象,对调查地区男男性接触者进行问卷调查,收集人口学特征、艾滋病相关知识与行为、艾滋病干预服务等信息,并采血进行HIV、梅毒和HCV抗体检测。结果共调查和检测1 128名男男性接触者,最近一年85.1%的调查对象曾接受过艾滋病干预服务,63.2%曾做过艾滋病检测且知道检测结果。单因素分析结果显示,样本来源、年龄、不同婚姻状况、在本地居住不同时间以及不同文化程度的艾滋病干预服务的接受率不同,最近一年曾接受过艾滋病干预服务的调查对象的艾滋病相关知识知晓率、最近一周肛交频率、同性肛交的安全套使用频率、艾滋病检测率高于未接受干预服务的调查对象,HIV抗体的阳性检出率则低于未接受干预服务的调查对象(P<0.05)。多因素分析结果显示,绿城彩虹活动中心招募来源,在本地居住时间小于3个月,未婚,最近一周肛交次数小于1次,最近一年没做过艾滋病检测的MSM的艾滋病干预服务的接受率较低。结论广西的艾滋病干预服务在MSM人群的覆盖率较高,但仍存在一些干预的薄弱人群,加强干预的持续性与反复性。
Objective To understand the situation of HIV / AIDS intervention services for men who have sex with men (MSM) in Guangxi, assess the effect of intervention, analyze the influencing factors and provide a scientific basis for more effective intervention services. Methods By means of convenience sampling, we conducted a questionnaire survey on men who have sex with men (MSM) in the survey area and collected information on demographic characteristics, AIDS-related knowledge and behaviors, HIV / AIDS intervention services and so on through various venues and networks of MSM. Blood samples were collected for HIV, syphilis and HCV antibody testing. Results A total of 1 128 men who had sex with men (MSM) were surveyed and tested. 85.1% of the respondents received AIDS intervention services in the recent year, 63.2% had HIV testing and knew the test results. The results of univariate analysis showed that the acceptance rates of AIDS intervention services with different sample source, age, different marital status, living at different times in the local community and different education levels were different, and AIDS-related knowledge of respondents who had received AIDS intervention services in the recent year Rates of HIV prevalence, frequency of condom use in same-sex anal sex, frequency of condom use in homosexual anal intercourse, and HIV prevalence in the last week were higher than those who did not receive intervention services. HIV antibody positive rates were lower than those who did not receive intervention services (P <0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that the recruit sources of Greentown Rainbow Center were less than 3 months old, unmarried, less than 1 anal intercourse in the recent week, and the acceptance rate of HIV / AIDS intervention services for MSM who did not have AIDS test in the recent year low. Conclusion The coverage of HIV / AIDS intervention services in Guangxi is higher among MSM population. However, there are still some vulnerable groups of interventions in Guangxi and the persistence and repetitiveness of intervention are strengthened.