Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Arch Sex Behav. 2016 Sep 12;46(5):1491–1502. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0819-y

Table 2.

Associations between structural stigma, population size, and sexual minority men’s odds of bisexual or heterosexual attraction, behavior, and identity: European MSM Internet Survey (EMIS)

Odds of bisexual or heterosexual identity (vs. gay/homosexual identity), n = 150,539
Variable Model 1
Model 2
AOR 95% CI p AOR 95% CI p
Structural stigma 1.35 1.19, 1.54 < .001 1.39 1.22, 1.58 < .001
Small settlement size 1.62 1.51, 1.74 < .001 1.59 1.49, 1.71 < .001
Structural stigma * small town -- -- -- 0.94 0.87, 1.02 .160

Odds of bisexual or heterosexual behavior (vs. exclusively homosexual behavior) (past 12 months), n = 154,250
Variable Model 1
Model 2
AOR 95% CI p AOR 95% CI p

Structural stigma 1.33 1.20, 1.47 < .001 1.37 1.24, 1.52 < .001
Small settlement size 1.49 1.39, 1.60 < .001 1.45 1.36, 1.55 < .001
Structural stigma * small town -- -- -- 0.92 0.84, 0.99 .043

Odds of bisexual or heterosexual attraction (vs. exclusively/mostly homosexual attraction), n = 163,108
Variable Model 1
Model 2
AOR 95% CI p AOR 95% CI p

Structural stigma 1.18 1.04, 1.35 .015 1.26 1.11, 1.44 .001
Small settlement size 1.50 1.37, 1.65 < .001 1.45 1.34, 1.57 < .001
Structural stigma * small town -- -- -- 0.86 0.79, 0.93 .001

Note: All models were adjusted for age, relationship status, HIV status, education, employment status, immigration status, and country-level income inequality. Model 2 includes interaction term, structural stigma*settlement size. AOR = adjusted odds ratio, CI = confidence interval