Table 2.

Comparison and odds of establishment of a sexual agreement based on HIV-negative gay male couples’ use of substances with sex

	Establishment of a sexual agreement
	Couple concurred yes		Couple disagreed or concurred no (ref)
Sample size: 361 dyads	N = 162 dyads		N = 113 dyads
Substance use with sex	One or both partners used		One or both partners used
Within relationship	N	%	N	%	AOR	CI
Party drugsa	19	12	5	4	2.93*	1.06 – 8.07
Marijuana	57	35	26	23	1.88*	1.08 – 3.27
Alcohol	138	85	98	87	0.89	0.44 – 1.80
EDMb	32	20	12	11	2.09*	1.02 – 4.30
Amyl nitrates	28	17	8	7	2.80*	1.23 – 6.39
Sample size: 83 dyads, 132 gay men	N = 112 gay men		N = 20 gay men
Outside of relationshipc	N	%	N	%	AOR	CI
Party drugsa	14	13	2	10	1.32	0.15 – 11.52
Marijuana	36	32	3	15	2.86	0.66 – 12.38
Alcohol	75	67	5	25	6.09**	1.81 – 20.52
EDMb	34	30	2	10	4.08	0.78 – 21.47
Amyl nitrates	39	35	4	20	2.43	0.59 – 10.06

Notes.

Findings in this table were produced from couple-level analyses. Logistic regression models for within the relationship controlled for engagement of unprotected anal intercourse with the main partner whereas the logistic regression models for outside the relationship controlled for unprotected anal intercourse with a casual MSM partner.

AOR adjusted odds ratio, CI confidence interval

^*p<.05,

^**p<.01

^aParty drugs include ecstasy, ketamine, GHB, cocaine, and methamphetamine.

^bEDM denotes Erectile Dysfunction Medication.

^cRates, percentages and adjusted odds ratios only included those who reported they had sex with a casual MSM partner within the prior three months to assessment.