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.