Are We Still Having Sex? Results of Round Two of the Love and Sex in the Time of COVID Survey with Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men.

This paper presents data from the Love and Sex in the Time of COVID survey, an online survey with US gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. The first round of the Love and Sex in the Time of COVID-19 survey was conducted online from April to May, 2020: the second round was collected November 2020 to January 2021. GBMSM were recruited through advertisements featured on social networking platforms. Analysis examines changes in self-reported measures of sexual behavior (number of sex partners, number of anal sex partners and number of anal sex partners not protected by pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or condoms) between those with complete data for round one and round two of the surveys (n = 280). While in round one, men reported a moderate willingness to have sex during COVID-19 (3.5 on a scale from 1 to 5), this had reduced significantly to 2.1 by round two. Men reported declines in the number of unprotected anal sex partners since pre-COVID. Perceptions of a longer time until the end of the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with increases in the number of sex partners and UAI partners. The results illustrate some significant declines in sexual behavior among GBMSM as the COVID-19 pandemic progressed. As vaccine programs continue to roll out across the U.S, as lockdowns ease and as we return to some normalcy, it will be important to continue to think critically about ways to re-engage men in HIV prevention.

COVID-19 and the Risk for Increased Intimate Partner Violence Among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States.

Stay at home orders-intended to reduce the spread of COVID-19 by limiting social contact-have forced people to remain in their homes. The additional stressors created by the need to stay home and socially isolate may act as triggers to intimate partner violence (IPV). In this article, we present data from a recent online cross-sectional survey with gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in the United States to illustrate changes in IPV risks that have occurred during the U.S. COVID-19 epidemic. The Love and Sex in the Time of COVID-19 survey was conducted online from April to May 2020. GBMSM were recruited through paid banner advertisements featured on social networking platforms, recruiting a sample size of 696 GBMSM. Analysis considers changes in victimization and perpetration of IPV during the 3 months prior to the survey (March-May 2020) that represents the first 3 months of lockdown during the COVID-19 epidemic. During the period March-May 2020, 12.6% of participants reported experiencing any IPV with higher rates of emotional IPV (10.3%) than sexual (2.2%) or physical (1.8%) IPV. Of those who reported IPV victimization during lockdown, for almost half this was their first time experience: 5.3% reported the IPV they experienced happened for the first time during the past 3 months (0.8% physical, 2.13% sexual, and 3.3% emotional). Reporting of perpetration of IPV during lockdown was lower: only 6% reported perpetrating any IPV, with perpetration rates of 1.5% for physical, 0.5% for sexual, and 5.3% for emotional IPV. Of those who reported perpetration of IPV during lockdown, very small percentages reported that this was the first time they had perpetrated IPV: 0.9% for any IPV (0.2% physical, 0.2% sexual, and 0.6% emotional). The results illustrate an increased need for IPV resources for GBMSM during these times of increased stress and uncertainty, and the need to find models of resource and service delivery that can work inside of social distancing guidelines while protecting the confidentiality and safety of those who are experiencing IPV.

COVID-19 Pandemic Optimism and Vaccine Willingness among an Online Sample of US Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men.

This paper presents data from an online sample of U.S gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM), to explore the factors associated with three dimensions of vaccine beliefs: perception of the likelihood of a COVID-19 vaccine becoming available, perception of when a COVID-19 vaccine would become available, and the likelihood of taking a COVID-19 vaccine. Data are taken from the Love and Sex in the Time of COVID-19 study, collected from November 2020 to January 2021. A sample of 290 GBMSM is analyzed, modeling three binary outcomes: belief that there will be a COVID-19 vaccine, belief that the COVID-19 vaccine will be available in 6 months, and being very likely to take the COVID-19 vaccine. In contrast to other studies, Black/African Americans and GBMSM living with HIV had higher levels of pandemic optimism and were more likely to be willing to accept a vaccine. Men who perceived a higher prevalence of COVID-19 among their friends and sex partners, and those who had reduced their sex partners, were more likely to be willing to take a COVID-19 vaccine. There remained a small percentage of participants (14%) who did not think the pandemic would end, that there would not be a vaccine and were unlikely to take a vaccine. To reach the levels of vaccination necessary to control the pandemic, it is imperative to understand the characteristics of those experiencing vaccine hesitancy and then tailor public health messages to their unique set of barriers and motivations.

Provider attitudes towards a brief behavioral intervention for sexual health in Moldova.

BACKGROUND: Brief behavioral interventions are seen as an efficient way to improve knowledge, change behavior, and reduce provider stigma regarding sexual health. When grounded in evidence-based behavioral change techniques and delivered using Brief Sexuality-related Communication (BSC) tools, brief behavioral interventions can address client-driven sexual health goals in a single session with their provider. Evidence for the efficacy of brief interventions for creating gains in sexual health comes largely from resource rich settings, and there is a lack of knowledge of how brief interventions can be implemented in the more resource constrained environments of low- and middle-income countries. As a first step in developing a brief intervention to address sexual health issues in Moldova, this paper reports on qualitative data collected from Moldovan providers to understand their attitudes, willingness and perceived barriers to the brief intervention and its implementation. METHODS: Thirty-nine in-depth interviews (IDI) were conducted between February and March 2020, with health providers recruited from three primary health care institutions, two Youth Friendly Health Centers and counselors from three NGOs who work with key populations in Moldova, including health centers selected from two cites - the capital city, Chisinau and from the Comrat Region. The IDI addressed four domains of provider attitudes: 1) attitudes towards the intervention; 2) willingness and motivation to implement the intervention; 3) logistics of providing the intervention and 4) ability to implement the intervention. A coding analysis approach was applied to all interview transcripts. RESULTS: Providers largely reported being willing to be trained in and implement the brief intervention. Willingness to implement the intervention stemmed from two perceptions: that it would improve the ability of providers to talk with their clients about sex, and that vulnerable groups would benefit from these conversations. However, while there were generally positive attitudes towards the intervention, providers consistently reported structural barriers to their perceived ability to implement the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: While providers reported high levels of initial acceptance of a brief behavioral intervention, care is needed to ensure that brief interventions, and the training of providers on brief interventions, incorporate cultural attitudes and norms around sex, particularly in highly patriarchal settings, and provide opportunities for providers to practice the intervention in ways that address their assumptions and implicit biases.

Sex in the Time of COVID-19: Results of an Online Survey of Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men's Experience of Sex and HIV Prevention During the US COVID-19 Epidemic.

This paper presents data from a recent cross-sectional survey of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in the US, to understand changes in sexual behavior and access to HIV prevention options (i.e. condoms and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)) during the COVID-19 lockdown period. The Love and Sex in the Time of COVID-19 survey was conducted online from April to May, 2020. GBMSM were recruited through advertisements featured on social networking platforms, recruiting a sample size of 518 GBMSM. Analysis considers changes three in self-reported measures of sexual behavior: number of sex partners, number of anal sex partners and number of anal sex partners not protected by pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or condoms. Approximately two-thirds of the sample reported that they believed it was possible to contract COVID-19 through sex, with anal sex reported as the least risky sex act. Men did not generally feel it was important to reduce their number of sex partners during COVID-19, but reported a moderate willingness to have sex during COVID-19. For the period between February and April-May 20,202, participants reported a mean increase of 2.3 sex partners during COVID-19, a mean increase of 2.1 anal sex partners (range - 40 to 70), but a very small increase in the number of unprotected anal sex partners. Increases in sexual behavior during COVID-19 were associated with increases in substance use during the same period. High levels of sexual activity continue to be reported during the COVID-19 lockdown period and these high levels of sexual activity are often paralleled by increases in substance use and binge drinking. There is a clear need to continue to provide comprehensive HIV prevention and care services during COVID-19, and telehealth and other eHealth platforms provide a safe, flexible mechanism for providing services.

Contrasting the Perceived Severity of COVID-19 and HIV Infection in an Online Survey of Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men During the U.S. COVID-19 Epidemic.

While there is evidence of variations in the risk perceptions of COVID-19 and that they are linked to both engagement in health-protective behaviors and poor mental health outcomes, there has been a lack of attention to how individuals perceive the risk of COVID-19 relative to other infectious diseases. This paper examines the relative perceptions of the severity of COVID-19 and HIV among a sample of U.S. gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSMs). The "Love and Sex in the Time of COVID-19" survey was conducted online from April 2020 to May 2020. GBMSMs were recruited through paid banner advertisements featured on social networking platforms, resulting in a sample size of 696. The analysis considers differences in responses to two scales: the Perceived Severity of HIV Infection and the Perceived Severity of COVID-19 Infection. Participants perceived greater seriousness for HIV infection (mean 46.67, range 17-65) than for COVID-19 infection (mean 38.81, range 13-62). Some items reflecting more proximal impacts of infection (anxiety, loss of sleep, and impact on employment) were similar for HIV and COVID-19. Those aged over 25 and those who perceived higher prevalence of COVID-19 in the United States or their state were more likely to report COVID-19 as more severe than HIV. There is a need to develop nuanced public health messages for GBMSMs that convey the ongoing simultaneous health threats of both HIV and COVID-19.

NephCure Accelerating Cures Institute: A Multidisciplinary Consortium to Improve Care for Nephrotic Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: NephCure Accelerating Cures Institute (NACI) is a collaborative organization sponsored by NephCure Kidney International and the University of Michigan. The Institute is composed of 7 cores designed to improve treatment options and outcomes for patients with glomerular disease: Clinical Trials Network, Data Warehouse, Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) and Endpoints Consortium, Clinical Trials Consulting Team, Quality Initiatives, Education and Engagement, and Data Coordinating Center. METHODS: The Trials Network includes 22 community- and hospital-based nephrology practices, 14 of which are trial-only sites. Eight sites participate in the NACI Registry, and as of October 2017, 1054 patients are enrolled with diagnoses including but not limited to focal segmental glomerulosclerosis, minimal change disease, membranous nephropathy, IgA nephropathy, and childhood-onset nephrotic syndrome. By using electronic health record data extraction, robust and efficient clinical data are captured while minimizing the burden to site-based network staff. RESULTS: The Data Warehouse includes her-extracted data from registry patients, PRO development data, and data from completed observational studies and clinical trials. The Clinical Trial Consulting Team provides support for trial design in rare diseases leveraging these data. The PRO and Endpoints Consortium develops shorter-term endpoints while capturing the patient-reported significance of interventions under study. The Quality Initiatives and Education/Engagement cores elevate the level of care for patients. The Data Coordinating Center manages the analysis and operations of the Institute. CONCLUSION: By engaging with patients, academia, industry, and patient advocate community representatives, including our Patient Advisory Board, NACI strives for better outcomes and treatments using evidence-based support for clinical trial design.

Provider perspectives on treatment decision-making in nephrotic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Managing patients with nephrotic syndrome (NS) remains difficult for the practicing nephrologist. This often young patient population is faced with a debilitating, relapsing and remitting disease with non-specific treatment options that are often poorly tolerated. Clinicians managing these complex patients must attempt to apply disease-specific evidence while considering the individual patient's clinical and personal situation. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews to ascertain the provider perspectives of NS, treatment options and factors that influence recommendations for disease management, and administered a survey to assess both facilitators and barriers to the implementation of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines. RESULTS: When making treatment recommendations, providers considered characteristics of various treatments such as efficacy, side effects and evaluation of risk versus benefit, taking into account how the specific treatment fit with the individual patient. Time constraints and the complexity of explaining the intricacies of NS were noted as significant barriers to care. Although the availability of guidelines was deemed a facilitator to care, the value of the KDIGO guidelines was limited by the perception of poor quality of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The complexity of NS and the scarcity of robust evidence to support treatment recommendations are common challenges reported by nephrologists. Future development and use of shared learning platforms may support the integration of best available evidence, patient/family preferences and exchange of information at a pace that is unconstrained by the outpatient clinic schedule.