Table 3.
Associations between patterns of online sex seeking and last instance of condomless anal sex while not on preexposure prophylaxis or antiretroviral therapy stratified by level of social support and outnessa.
|
|
aPRb (95% CI) | |
| Model 1a: high social support | ||
|
|
Gay app users | 0.33 (0.12-0.92)c |
|
|
Poly app users | 0.68 (0.26-1.76) |
|
|
Low-cost app users | 0.96 (0.64-1.44) |
|
|
Negligible app users | Reference |
| Model 1b: low social support | ||
|
|
Gay app users | 0.38 (0.06-2.44) |
|
|
Poly app users | 1.00 (0.26-3.83) |
|
|
Low-cost app users | 1.41 (0.93-2.13) |
|
|
Negligible app users | Reference |
| Model 2a: high outness | ||
|
|
Gay app users | 0.19 (0.05-0.70)c |
|
|
Poly app users | 0.21 (0.02-1.85) |
|
|
Low-cost app users | 1.33 (0.80-2.22) |
|
|
Negligible app users | Reference |
| Model 2b: low outness | ||
|
|
Gay app users | 0.46 (0.07-2.99) |
|
|
Poly app users | 1.00 (0.30-3.36) |
|
|
Low-cost app users | 1.47 (0.99-2.18)d |
|
|
Negligible app users | 0.46 (0.07-2.99) |
aHigh social support and high outness were defined as equal to or above the sample means. Models 1a and 1b were adjusted for educational level, employment status, income, whether participants had ever sold sex, steady partnership, any sexually transmitted infection (STI) diagnoses, condom use in the previous 3 months, outness, and HIV stigma. Models 2a and 2b were adjusted for educational level, employment status, income, whether participants had ever sold sex, steady partnership, any STI diagnoses, condom use in the previous 3 months, and HIV stigma.
baPR: adjusted prevalence ratio.
cSignificant at P<.05.
dMarginally significant, with a P value between .05 and .06.