Skip to main content

Table 1 Participant, SNM, and partner characteristics and associations with CAI among Peruvian MSM and Trans Women, 2017

From: Sexual health norms and communication patterns within the close social networks of men who have sex with men and transgender women in Lima, Peru: a 2017 cross-sectional study

 

MSM

Trans Women

Median or N (IQR or %)

PR (95% CI)

aPR (95% CI)

Median or N (IQR or %)

PR (95% CI)

aPR (95% CI)

PARTICIPANT

N = 444

  

N = 121

  

Age (n = 443 MSM, 121 Trans Women)

27 (22,34)

1.00 (0.99, 1.00)

1.00 (0.99, 1.00)

29 (24,38)

1.01 (1.00, 1.02)

1.00 (0.99, 1.02)

Sexual Role (n = 437 MSM, 121 Trans Women)

Pasivo (receptive)

208 (47.6)

Ref.

Ref.

104 (85.9)

Ref.

Ref.

Moderno (versatile)

229 (52.4)

0.97 (0.88, 1.08)

1.00 (0.90, 1.09)

17 (14.1)

1.04 (0.71, 1.52)

1.06 (0.73, 1.54)

Gender Identity/Sexual Orientation (n = 437 MSM, 118 Trans Women)

 Heterosexual

6 (1.4)

Ref.

Ref.

8 (6.8)

Ref.

Ref.

 Bisexual

69 (15.8)

1.02 (0.57, 1.84)

1.02 (0.57, 1.84)

6 (5.1)

0.67 (0.18, 2.53)

0.72 (0.24, 2.17)

 Gay

362 (82.8)

1.19 (0.68, 2.11)

1.18 (0.67, 2.06)

90 (76.3)

1.31 (0.64, 2.67)

1.41 (0.76, 2.60)

 Transsexual/ transgender

0

  

14 (11.8)

1.14 (0.50, 2.63)

1.18 (0.56, 2.47)

Education

  < High School

27 (6.1)

Ref.

Ref.

23 (19.0)

Ref.

Ref.

 High School

151 (34.0)

1.07 (0.83, 1.39)

1.08 (0.83, 1.39)

70 (57.9)

1.41 (0.85, 2.34)

1.42 (0.86, 2.35)

  > High School

266 (59.9)

1.13 (0.88, 1.45)

1.14 (0.89, 1.46)

28 (23.1)

1.89 (1.15, 3.11)

1.87 (1.13, 3.10)

Social Network Size

Number of Gay/Bisexual Contacts (n = 389 MSM, 96 Trans Women) [ref.: < median]

30 (15,100)

0.98 (0.88, 1.09)

 

50 (20,100)

1.01 (0.73, 1.39)

 

Number of Gay/Bisexual Close Contacts (n = 428 MSM, 112 Trans Women) [ref.: < median]

1 (1,3)

1.10 (1.00, 1.22)

 

1 (1,3)

1.13 (0.85, 1.50)

 

Sexual Network Size in the past 30 days (n = 443 MSM, 121 Trans Women) [ref.: < median]

5 (2,10)

1.08 (0.98, 1.19)

 

10 (4,11)

0.80 (0.61, 1.05)

 

KEY SOCIAL INFLUENCERS

N = 1332

  

N = 363

  

Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity (n = 1286 MSM, 344 Trans Women)

 Heterosexual

433 (33.7)

Ref.

 

97 (28.2)

Ref.

 

 Bisexual

247 (19.2)

1.04 (0.95, 1.15)

 

89 (25.9)

0.83 (0.62, 1.11)

 

 Gay

544 (42.3)

1.05 (0.96, 1.14)

 

73 (21.2)

0.93 (0.72, 1.20)

 

 Transgender/sexual

62 (4.8)

0.98 (0.80, 1.19)

 

85 (24.7)

0.77 (0.56, 1.06)

 

Relationship with Participant a (n = 1297 MSM, 355 Trans Women)

 Family

 

Ref.

  

Ref.

 

  Parent

104 (8.0)

 

20 (5.6)

 

  Sibling

68 (5.2)

 

30 (8.5)

 

  Cousin/other relative

56 (4.3)

 

14 (3.9)

 

 Spouse or partner

51 (3.9)

0.97 (0.81, 1.16)

 

25 (7.0)

1.21 (0.82, 1.77)

 

 Friend

963 (74.3)

1.02 (0.92, 1.13)

 

240 (67.6)

1.06 (0.79, 1.43)

 

 Colleague

55 (4.3)

0.95 (0.78, 1.15)

 

26 (7.3)

1.23 (0.85, 1.78)

 

Discussions of HIV “in addition to testing or prevention” (n = 1319 MSM, 357 Trans Women) [ref.: no]

363 (27.5)

1.00 (0.91, 1.09)

 

77 (21.6)

0.90 (0.67, 1.20)

 

Freq. of discussion about HIV/STI questions or concerns b: (n = 1319 MSM, 357 Trans Women)

 Never

450 (34.1)

Ref.

Ref.

107 (30.0)

Ref.

 

 Ever

 

1.11 (1.01, 1.22)

1.08 (0.99, 1.19)

 

1.14 (0.87, 1.49)

 

  1x every few months

472 (35.8)

121 (33.9)

 

  1x every few weeks

209 (15.8)

58 (16.2)

 

    1x/week

188 (14.3)

71 (19.9)

 

Participant perceptions of KSI attitudes toward

Condom use for the prevention of HIV: (n = 1317 MSM, 356 Trans Women)

  No Opinion

124 (9.4)

Ref.

 

49 (13.8)

Ref.

Ref.

  Completely Opposed

11 (0.8)

1.20 (0.96, 1.50)

 

6 (1.7)

1.28 (0.80, 2.03)

1.57 (0.95, 2.57)

  Partially Opposed

37 (2.8)

1.14 (0.95, 1.37)

 

8 (2.2)

1.53 (1.14, 2.06)

1.14 (0.82, 1.58)

  Partially in Favor

208 (15.8)

1.03 (0.87, 1.22)

 

74 (20.8)

0.99 (0.69, 1.44)

0.93 (0.65, 1.34)

  Completely in Favor

937 (71.2)

1.02 (0.87, 1.19)

 

219 (61.5)

0.94 (0.67, 1.30)

0.90 (0.65, 1.23)

Disclosing an STI diagnosis to a partner: (n = 1318 MSM, 356 Trans Women)

  No Opinion

348 (26.4)

Ref.

 

63 (17.7)

Ref.

 

  Completely Opposed

159 (12.1)

0.96 (0.83, 1.10)

 

35 (9.8)

0.90 (0.55, 1.48)

 

  Partially Opposed

90 (6.8)

0.95 (0.81, 1.13)

 

41 (11.5)

1.02 (0.68, 1.55)

 

  Partially in Favor

281 (21.3)

0.93 (0.83, 1.04)

 

84 (23.6)

0.93 (0.66, 1.31)

 

  Completely in Favor

440 (33.4)

0.92 (0.82, 1.03)

 

133 (37.4)

0.94 (0.69, 1.29)

 

HIV/STI Testing: (n = 1319 MSM, 356 Trans Women)

  No Opinion

163 (12.3)

Ref.

 

33 (9.3)

Ref.

 

  Completely Opposed

9 (0.7)

0.54 (0.24, 1.21)

 

5 (1.4)

1.02 (0.58, 1.79)

 

  Partially Opposed

21 (1.6)

0.93 (0.70, 1.25)

 

8 (2.2)

0.95 (0.60, 1.51)

 

  Partially in Favor

162 (12.3)

0.86 (0.73, 1.02)

 

41 (11.5)

0.71 (0.45, 1.14)

 

  Completely in Favor

964 (73.1)

0.96 (0.85, 1.08)

 

269 (75.6)

0.79 (0.59, 1.06)

 

PARTNERS

N = 444

  

N = 121

  

Transactional encounter with any of last 3 partners [ref.: no]

60 (13.5)

0.94 (0.80, 1.10)

0.95 (0.81, 1.12)

55 (45.5)

0.92 (0.70, 1.22)

0.96 (0.73, 1.26)

Alcohol used with any of last 3 partners by partner or participant prior to sex [ref.: no]

232 (52.3)

1.18 (1.07, 1.31)

1.13 (1.02, 1.26)

70 (57.9)

1.18 (0.45, 0.72)

1.12 (0.83, 1.51)

  1. Abbreviations: aPR adjusted prevalence ratio, PR prevalence ratio, 95% CI 95% confidence interval
  2. Notes: Ns for individual variables may vary, depending on completeness of participant responses. For variables missing responses, Ns are as written
  3. Bold values indicate p < 0.05 in crude (bivariate) and adjusted (multivariate) generalized estimating equation (GEE) models
  4. Multivariate GEE models were adjusted for age, sexual role, sexual orientation, education, partnership type, and alcohol use prior to sex
  5. arecategorized to: “family, partner, friend, or colleague” prior to inclusion in GEE.
  6. brecategorized to: “never or ever” prior to inclusion in GEE.