论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨聚集性干预活动对深圳市男男性行为者(MSM)性网络及艾滋病病毒(HIV)传播的影响。方法于2015年7—10月在深圳市福田区采用同伴推动抽样法招募研究对象,问卷调查并抽血检测HIV感染情况。结果 379名研究对象,平均性网络规模为5.16,平均性网络密度为0.33,平均性网络联接度为3.71;性网络规模为6.7的MSM参加聚集性干预活动为67.78%(143/211),高于性网络规模为3.1的MSM(55.36%,93/168))(P<0.05);其感染HIV阳性率为16.11%(34/211),高于后者(8.93%,15/168)(P<0.05);性网络密度为0.5的M SM参加聚集性干预活动为74.50%(149/200),高于性网络密度为0.3的M SM(48.60%,87/149)(P<0.05);其感染HIV阳性率为18.50%,高于后者(6.70%)(P<0.05);HIV阳性M SM参加聚集性干预活动为77.55%,HIV阴性M SM参加率为60.00%(P<0.05,OR=2.30)。结论聚集性干预活动在一定程度上扩大了深圳地区MSM性网络规模,增加了MSM性网络密度,促进HIV传播。
Objective To investigate the effect of aggregate interventions on the MSM network and HIV transmission in Shenzhen. METHODS: From July to October 2015, samples were recruited by peer-driven sampling in Futian District, Shenzhen. Questionnaires and blood tests were performed to detect HIV infection. Results A total of 379 subjects with an average network size of 5.16, an average network density of 0.33 and an average degree of network connectivity of 3.71, and 6.7% of MSM participants participated in a cluster intervention activity of 67.78% (143/211) The positive rate of HIV infection was 16.11% (34/211), higher than that of the latter (8.93%, 15/168) (MSM 55.36%, 93/168) (P <0.05) (P <0.05). SMM with sexual network density of 0.5 had aggregative intervention activity of 74.50% (149/200) and higher than M SM (48.60%, 87/149) with the network density of 0.3 ; HIV positive rate was 18.50%, higher than that of the latter (6.70%) (P <0.05); HIV-positive M SM was 77.55% for aggregation intervention and HIV-negative M SM was 60.00% (P <0.05) , OR = 2.30). Conclusion Aggressive interventions have expanded MSM network scale in Shenzhen to a certain extent, increased MSM network density and promoted HIV transmission.