Table 4.
Logistic regression analyses of condomless anal intercourse (C0AI) or serodiscordant C0AI among 1,170 men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States.
| Bivariate Models | Multivariate Model | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C0AI | Serodiscordant C0AI | C0AI | Serodiscordant C0AI | |||||
| OR | (95% CI) | OR | (95% CI) | AOR | (95% CI) | AOR | (95% CI) | |
| PI-SEOM Subscale 1: Influence on Self | ||||||||
| General sexual scripts (Subscale 1a) | 1.0 | 0.8 - 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.9 - 1.3 | ||||
| Condomless sex scripts (Subscale 1b) | 2.3 | 1.9 - 2.8 | 1.8 | 1.5 - 2.2 | 1.4 | 1.1 - 1.7 | 1.2 | 1.0 - 1.6 |
| PI-SEOM Subscale 2: Influence on Others | ||||||||
| General sexual scripts (Subscale 2a) | 1.0 | 0.9 - 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.9 - 1.4 | ||||
| Condomless sex scripts (Subscale 2b) | 1.2 | 1.0 - 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.1 - 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.8 - 1.1 | 1.2 | 0.9 - 1.5 |
| Negative attitudes towards condoms | 1.2 | 1.1 - 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 - 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.1 - 1.2 | 1.1 | 1.0 - 1.1 |
| Percentage of SEOM showing C0AI | ||||||||
| 0-24% | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| 25-49% | 1.7 | 1.5 - 1.9 | 1.4 | 1.2 - 1.6 | 1.3 | 1.2 - 1.5 | 1.1 | 0.9 - 1.3 |
| 50-74% | 2.9 | 2.2 - 3.7 | 1.9 | 1.4 - 2.4 | 1.8 | 1.3 - 2.4 | 1.2 | 0.9 - 1.6 |
| 75-100% | 5.1 | 3.2 - 7.0 | 2.6 | 1.6 - 3.6 | 2.5 | 1.4 - 3.5 | 1.4 | 0.7 - 2.0 |
| Preferences about condom use in SEOM | ||||||||
| Prefers condoms are used | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Prefers condoms are not used | 6.7 | 4.6 - 9.8 | 4.1 | 2.6 - 6.6 | 2.7 | 1.7 - 4.2 | 2.5 | 1.4 - 4.3 |
| No preference | 3.4 | 2.4 - 4.8 | 2.4 | 1.5 - 3.8 | 2.3 | 1.6 - 3.4 | 2.1 | 1.3 - 3.4 |
Note. C0AI = condomless anal intercourse; PI-SEOM = perceived influence of sexually explicit online media; SEOM = sexually explicit online media; OR = odds ratio; AOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; All models are adjusted for recruitment source, age, race/ethnicity, having a primary partner, “outness,” and HIV serostatus.