Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: AIDS Educ Prev. 2015 Aug;27(4):289–297. doi: 10.1521/aeap.2015.27.4.289

Table 1.

Sample description and site comparison of men who have sex with men from Boston, Pittsburgh, and San Juan, 2010–2012.

Total
(N=228)
Boston
(N=81)
Pittsburgh
(N=62)
San Juan
(N=85)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p1
Age 23.1 (3.3) 23.8 (3.4) 22.7 (3.2) 22.8 (3.2) .070
Education2 4.3 (1.1) 4.3 (1.2) 4.2 (1.0) 4.3 (1.0) .987
Annual income 14,249 (14,646) 18,516 (15,198) 16,123 (15,140) 7,766 (11,097) <.001
Times tested for HIV 5.7 (8.5) 7.6 (12.8) 4.5 (3.8) 4.9 (4.9) .044
Median (Range) Median (Range) Median (Range) Median (Range) p1
Number of male partners, 3 mo.3 3 (1–70) 3 (1–50) 2.5 (1–20) 4 (1–70) .099
Frequency of unprotected receptive anal sex, 3 mo.3 3 (0–160) 3 (0–50) 2 (0–78) 3 (0–160) .228
Frequency of unprotected insertive anal sex, 3 mo.3 1 (0–150) 1 (0–40) 1 (0–35) 2 (0–150) .386
%4 %4 %4 %4 p1
Race/Ethnicity <.001
  White 41 58 74 1
  Latino 44 20 2 99
  African American 9 7 23 0
  Other/mixed 6 15 2 0
Sexual self-label .252
  Gay 80 74 85 82
  Bisexual 20 25 15 18
  Straight5 1 1 0 0
Currently employed 61 57 73 57 .099
Currently student 45 36 52 50 .096
Ever had an STD 26 35 30 15 .010
Ever heard of PEP6 41 64 47 16 <.001
Ever heard of PrEP6 21 36 19 8 <.001
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p1
How likely to use PEP7 9.1 (1.9) 9.2 (1.5) 9.4 (1.5) 8.8 (2.4) .121
How likely to use PrEP7 7.7 (2.4) 7.3 (2.4) 7.7 (2.4) 8.2 (2.5) .065
1

p-values comparing 3 sites using ANOVAs for continuous and chi-square tests for categorical variables

2

Measured using a 7-point scale: 5=college graduate

3

Values log-transformed prior to ANOVA due to skewed distributions

4

Percents are of those with non-missing data

5

One straight identified man excluded from chi-square test

6

PEP = post-exposure prophylaxis; PrEP = pre-exposure prophylaxis

7

Measured on a 10-point scale: 10 = extremely likely