Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
John Imrie a Department of
Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Royal Free and University College
Medical School, London WC1E 6AU, b Camden and Islington
Community Health Services NHS Trust, London WC1E 6AU
Correspondence to: J Imrie jimrie{at}gum.ucl.ac.uk
Objective:
To determine the effectiveness of a brief cognitive behavioural intervention in reducing the incidence of sexually transmitted infections among gay men.
What is already known on this topic
What this study adds
Design:
Randomised controlled trial with 12 months' follow up.
Setting:
Sexual health clinic in London.
Participants:
343 gay men with an acute sexually
transmitted infection or who reported having had unprotected anal
intercourse in the past year.
Main outcome measures:
Number of new sexually
transmitted infections diagnosed during follow up and self reported
incidence of unprotected anal intercourse.
Results:
72% (361/499) of men invited to enter the study did so. 90% (308/343) of participants returned at least one
follow up questionnaire or re-attended the clinic and requested a check
up for sexually transmitted infections during follow up. At baseline,
37% (63/172) of the intervention group and 30% (50/166) of the
control group reported having had unprotected anal intercourse in the
past month. At 12 months, the proportions were 27% (31/114) and
32% ( 39/124) respectively (P=0.56). However, 31% (38/123) of
the intervention group and 21% (35/168) of controls had had at
least one new infection diagnosed at the clinic (adjusted odds ratio
1.66, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 2.74). Considering only men who
requested a check up for sexually transmitted infections, the
proportion diagnosed with a new infection was 58% (53/91) for men in
the intervention group and 43% (35/81) for men in the control
group (adjusted odds ratio 1.84, 0.99 to 3.40). Using a regional
database that includes information from 23 sexual health clinics in
London, we determined that few participants had attended other sexual
health clinics.
Conclusions:
This behavioural intervention was
acceptable and feasible to deliver, but it did not reduce the risk of
acquiring a new sexually transmitted infection among these gay men at
high risk. Even carefully designed interventions should not be assumed to bring benefit. It is important to evaluate their effects in randomised trials with objective clinical end points.
The need for effective HIV prevention strategies based on reducing
sexual risk behaviour remains important
This is the first randomised controlled trial of an intervention
addressing sexual behaviour in homosexual men that uses sexually
transmitted infections and self reported behaviour as end
points
Read all Rapid Responses