This study was approved by the Survey and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
A questionnaire survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews at saunas frequented by MSM in Hong Kong, after venue-based sampling. To begin, mapping of saunas frequented by MSM was performed and an estimation of the number of potential MSM customers at each location and time made. Sauna operators were approached to secure their support in the administration of the surveys at the venues. Two experienced peer workers familiar with the MSM community were trained to conduct the survey at saunas with the permission of the operators. The interviews were conducted using a questionnaire form that had been field tested, with responses recorded on paper forms by peer workers at the site. Over a 7-week period, 32 visits were made to 9 saunas between 4 and 8 pm covering different days of the week. The number of visits (ranging from 1 to 8) for each sauna was determined after assessment by peer workers in conjunction with sauna operators on the number of clients, with the aim of recruiting all MSM above the age of 18 who agreed to participate in the study. Written informed consent was obtained from all participating MSM prior to the survey. An incentive, in the form of a HKD50 (USD1 = HKD7.8) cafeteria coupon, was offered on completion of each questionnaire.
Structurally, the questionnaire is divided into 3 main parts, with the first part covering demographics (age, ethnicity, employment, education level, residency in Hong Kong) and self-identified body appearance in accordance with the grouping of such characteristics proclaimed by MSM during field study – lean/lean toned; slim/slim/fit; sporty; muscular/macho; business suit; chubby; bear; feminine. Respondents were also divided into single type and mixed type appearance (table 1). In the second part, information about sex partners was profiled followed by a review on partner-sourcing channels. On partner characteristics, MSM were inquired about the number and types of sex partners, separated into steady partners or “lovers” (a term preferred by local respondents, denoting sex partner(s) that one considered to be emotionally attached); regular partners (those with sexual relationship without emotional attachment over extended period), casual partners (one-night-stand partners), and commercial partners (those exchanging sex for money or kind, also termed “money-boy”). Partner sourcing was defined as the networking of sex partners through specific channels; and respondents were asked if they had sourced partners at the following types of venues in the preceding 3 months – public toilet, bars, saunas, parties and/or sex parties and different frequency. They were also inquired if they had sourced partners through internet (chatroom, instant messaging and presence (IMP), bulletin board system (BBS) and smart-phone, the latter referring to special applications (Apps) for networking. In the last part, MSM were asked about the number of sex partners sourced through the various channels in the preceding 3 months. The frequency of condom use for anal and oral sex with the four types of partners was assessed for the preceding 3 month period. Condom use was ranked at 4 levels – never, sometimes (less than half of the occasions), frequently (more than half the occasions), and always (100%).
In the analysis, the means of sourcing sex partners of MSM was distinguished into physical venues and virtual channels, the latter further subdivided into internet with or without the use of smart-phone, again in the previous 3 months. Comparison was made between users of physical venues alone and concomitant users of physical and virtual channels, and then between smart-phone users and non-smart phone users on their association, if any, with sex partner profile as well as the practice of unprotected sex in the 3 month period before interview. MSM were classified as “high risk” if they sometimes (less than half of the occasions) or never used condom for anal intercourse with any of their partners (steady, regular or casual partners), whereas those frequently (more than half of the occasions) or always using condom were considered “low risk”. Comparison was made by bivariate logistic regression. Statistical significance was two-sided and a threshold of p<0.05 was considered to be significant for all analyses. PASW Statistics 18 was used in performing statistical analyses.
Free full text: Click here