Skip to main content

Table 4 Reasons for perceived low risk of HIV stratified by being in the concordant (both perceived and clinically assessed low risk of HIV) or discordant group (perceived low risk of HIV and clinically assessed high risk of HIV).

From: Disjuncture between self-perceived and clinically assessed risk of HIV among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada

Reasons for self-perceived low risk of HIV

Concordant

Discordant

p-value

Examples

 

n

%

n

%

  

Condom use

70

41%

39

27%

Chi2 = 7.488, Cramer’s V = 0.154, (p = 0.006)

I always use condoms”, “I generally use condoms

Committed relationship/one main partnership

18

11%

22

15%

Chi2 = 1.379, Cramer’s V = 0.066, (p = 0.240)

In a relationship”, “One partner. Only oral otherwise

No or infrequent (anal) sex

38

22%

17

12%

Chi2 = 6.388, Cramer’s V = 0.142, (p = 0.011)

“Have minimal anal sex”, “Barely active”

Serosorting / strategic positioning

25

15%

20

14%

Chi2 = 0.077, Cramer’s V = 0.016,

(p = 0.782)

“Very discriminating in partners”, “Discuss with person first”

Few partners

22

13%

15

10%

Chi2 = 0.569, Cramer’s V = 0.043, (p = 0.451)

Same sexual partners as usual”, “Very few partners, only oral sex with strangers

Other†

5

3%

12

8%

Chi2 = 4.246, Cramer’s V = 0.116, (p = 0.039)

“Unprotected sex with an individual who was taking PrEP.”, “Took PEP when exposed”

Vague answer

6

4%

11

8%

Chi2 = 2.435, Cramer’s V = 0.088, (p = 0.119)

“There are few risks”, “Very careful I guess”

No response provided

25

15%

32

22%

Chi2 = 2.683, Cramer’s V = 0.092,

(p = 0.101)

-

Total

169

 

146

   
  1. †Other include relying on partners being on PrEP, relying on partners reporting to be undetectable, using PEP if needed, and testing