Enablers and Barriers to HIV Services for Gay and Bisexual Men in the COVID-19 Era: Fusing Data Sets from Two Global Online Surveys Via File Concatenation With Adjusted Weights.

BACKGROUND: Gay and bisexual men are 26 times more likely to acquire HIV than other adult men and represent nearly 1 in 4 new HIV infections worldwide. There is concern that the COVID-19 pandemic may be complicating efforts to prevent new HIV infections, reduce AIDS-related deaths, and expand access to HIV services. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gay and bisexual men's ability to access services is not fully understood. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand access to HIV services at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Our study used data collected from two independent global online surveys conducted with convenience samples of gay and bisexual men. Both data sets had common demographic measurements; however, only the COVID-19 Disparities Survey (n=13,562) collected the outcomes of interest (HIV services access at the height of the first COVID-19 wave) and only the Global Men's Health and Rights Survey 4 (GMHR-4; n=6188) gathered pre-COVID-19 pandemic exposures/covariates of interest (social/structural enablers of and barriers to HIV services access). We used data fusion methods to combine these data sets utilizing overlapping demographic variables and assessed relationships between exposures and outcomes. We hypothesized that engagement with the gay community and comfort with one's health care provider would be positively associated with HIV services access and negatively associated with poorer mental health and economic instability as the COVID-19 outbreaks took hold. Conversely, we hypothesized that sexual stigma and experiences of discrimination by a health care provider would be negatively associated with HIV services access and positively associated with poorer mental health and economic instability. RESULTS: With 19,643 observations after combining data sets, our study confirmed hypothesized associations between enablers of and barriers to HIV prevention, care, and treatment. For example, community engagement was positively associated with access to an HIV provider (regression coefficient=0.81, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86; P<.001), while sexual stigma was negatively associated with access to HIV treatment (coefficient=-1.39, 95% CI -1.42 to -1.36; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: HIV services access for gay and bisexual men remained obstructed and perhaps became worse during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Community-led research that utilizes novel methodological approaches can be helpful in times of crisis to inform urgently needed tailored responses that can be delivered in real time. More research is needed to understand the full impact COVID-19 is having on gay and bisexual men worldwide.

Peer- and community-led responses to HIV: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: In June 2021, United Nations (UN) Member States committed to ambitious targets for scaling up community-led responses by 2025 toward meeting the goals of ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030. These targets build on UN Member States 2016 commitments to ensure that 30% of HIV testing and treatment programmes are community-led by 2030. At its current pace, the world is not likely to meet these nor other global HIV targets, as evidenced by current epidemiologic trends. The COVID-19 pandemic threatens to further slow momentum made to date. The purpose of this paper is to review available evidence on the comparative advantages of community-led HIV responses that can better inform policy making towards getting the world back on track. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to gather available evidence on peer- and community-led HIV responses. Using UNAIDS' definition of 'community-led' and following PRISMA guidelines, we searched peer-reviewed literature published from January 1982 through September 2020. We limited our search to articles reporting findings from randomized controlled trials as well as from quasi-experimental, prospective, pre/post-test evaluation, and cross-sectional study designs. The overall goals of this scoping review were to gather available evidence on community-led responses and their impact on HIV outcomes, and to identify key concepts that can be used to quickly inform policy, practice, and research. FINDINGS: Our initial search yielded 279 records. After screening for relevance and conducting cross-validation, 48 articles were selected. Most studies took place in the global south (n = 27) and a third (n = 17) involved youth. Sixty-five percent of articles (n = 31) described the comparative advantage of peer- and community-led direct services, e.g., prevention and education (n = 23) testing, care, and treatment programs (n = 8). We identified more than 40 beneficial outcomes linked to a range of peer- and community-led HIV activities. They include improved HIV-related knowledge, attitudes, intentions, self-efficacy, risk behaviours, risk appraisals, health literacy, adherence, and viral suppression. Ten studies reported improvements in HIV service access, quality, linkage, utilization, and retention resulting from peer- or community-led programs or initiatives. Three studies reported structural level changes, including positive influences on clinic wait times, treatment stockouts, service coverage, and exclusionary practices. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Findings from our scoping review underscore the comparative advantage of peer- and community-led HIV responses. Specifically, the evidence from the published literature leads us to recommend, where possible, that prevention programs, especially those intended for people living with and disproportionately affected by HIV, be peer- and community-led. In addition, treatment services should strive to integrate specific peer- and community-led components informed by differentiated care models. Future research is needed and should focus on generating additional quantitative evidence on cost effectiveness and on the synergistic effects of bundling two or more peer- and community-led interventions.

Economic, Mental Health, HIV Prevention and HIV Treatment Impacts of COVID-19 and the COVID-19 Response on a Global Sample of Cisgender Gay Men and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men.

There is an urgent need to measure the impacts of COVID-19 among gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM). We conducted a cross-sectional survey with a global sample of gay men and other MSM (n = 2732) from April 16, 2020 to May 4, 2020, through a social networking app. We characterized the economic, mental health, HIV prevention and HIV treatment impacts of COVID-19 and the COVID-19 response, and examined whether sub-groups of our study population are disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. Many gay men and other MSM not only reported economic and mental health consequences, but also interruptions to HIV prevention and testing, and HIV care and treatment services. These consequences were significantly greater among people living with HIV, racial/ethnic minorities, immigrants, sex workers, and socio-economically disadvantaged groups. These findings highlight the urgent need to mitigate the negative impacts of COVID-19 among gay men and other MSM.

RESUMEN: Existe una necesidad urgente para medir los impactos de COVID-19 entre hombres gay y otros hombres que tienen sexo con hombres (HSH). Hemos conducido una encuesta multifuncional con una prueba mundial de hombres gay y otros HSH (n = 2732) desde el 16 de Abril hasta el 4 de Mayo del 2020, a través de una aplicación de red social. Nosotros caracterizamos los impactos económicos, de salud mental, prevención del VIH y tratamiento del VIH e impactos a COVID-19 y la respuesta de COVID-19, y examinamos si subgrupos de nuestra población de estudio fueron impactados desproporcionadamente por COVID-19. Muchos hombres no tan solo reportaron consecuencias económicas y de salud mental, sino también interrupciones de prevención y de pruebas de VIH, y cuidado del VIH y servicios de tratamiento. Encontramos consecuencias más significantes entre personas viviendo con VIH, grupos raciales/etnicos, migrantes, sexo servidores, y groupos socioeconomicamente disfavorecidos. Los resultados subrayan la necesidad crucial de mitigar los impactos multifacéticos de COVID-19 entre los hombres homosexuales y otros HSH, especialmente para aquellos con vulnerabilidades entrelazadas.