Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Original Study

Reasons for Not HIV Testing, Testing Intentions, and Potential Use of an Over-the-Counter Rapid HIV Test in an Internet Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men Who Have Never Tested for HIV

MacKellar, Duncan A. DrPH, MA, MPH*; Hou, Su-I RN, DrPH; Whalen, Christopher C. MD, MS; Samuelsen, Karen PhD; Sanchez, Travis DVM, MPH*; Smith, Amanda MPH*; Denson, Damian MPH§; Lansky, Amy PhD*; Sullivan, Patrick DVM, PhD for the WHBS Study Group

Author Information
Sexually Transmitted Diseases: May 2011 - Volume 38 - Issue 5 - p 419-428
doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31820369dd
  • Free

Entering the fourth decade of HIV/AIDS, the considerable individual and public-health benefits of regular HIV testing and early HIV diagnosis have been well established.1–4 Of persons at risk for HIV, men who have sex with men (MSM) arguably have the most to benefit from testing. Annual HIV incidence among MSM in the United States has increased steadily since the early 1990s, attributed in part, to the high proportion of HIV-infected MSM who are unaware of their infection.2,5–7 Although national guidelines recommend that MSM test for HIV annually, many test only infrequently, and of those <25 years of age, many have never tested for HIV.1,6–11 As a consequence, nearly half of HIV-infected MSM may be diagnosed late in the course of their HIV disease.12

Although considerable research has explored factors associated with ever, repeat, and recent testing among MSM in the United States, no reports have focused on those who have never tested for HIV (NTMSM).6–11,13–27 Thus, information on potential modes of delivery, relevant content, and priority of interventions to facilitate testing of NTMSM is not available. For example, although the internet is a promising new mode to deliver test-promotion interventions, the proportion of NTMSM who use the internet for HIV information (HIV internet-use) and who might access these interventions is unknown.28–30 Similarly, although outreach testing programs at MSM venues reach many high-risk MSM, the types of venues attended by NTMSM are also unknown.31–34

While several studies suggest that the main reasons for not HIV testing among MSM are perceived low risk for infection, fear of testing positive, and structural barriers such as not knowing where or not having the time or resources to test, the variation of these reasons among age, race/ethnic, risk, and HIV internet-use subgroups of NTMSM is unknown.6–9,24–27 Information about the variation of main reasons for not testing might help programs target more relevant test-promotion interventions and services for these important subgroups.35–37

Although most MSM eventually test for HIV, the magnitude and correlates of strong intentions to test in the upcoming year is also unknown for NTMSM.26 Information on subgroups of NTMSM who lack strong testing intentions might help prevention programs prioritize test-promotion interventions for MSM at risk for delayed testing and late HIV diagnosis. Finally, an over-the-counter rapid HIV test (OTCRT) is currently being evaluated and may soon be available in the United States market.38,39 Information on the potential use of an OTCRT among NTMSM, particularly among those who lack strong testing intentions, might help establish research needs on how OTCRT, if approved, might be used to increase the uptake of HIV testing among NTMSM.

To help meet these information needs, we evaluated among NTMSM who participated in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web-based HIV Behavioral Surveillance (WHBS) project (1) the magnitude and characteristics of subgroups that might be accessible to prevention services via the internet or at MSM venues; (2) the distribution of main reasons for not testing in age, racial/ethnic, risk, and HIV internet-use subgroups; and (3) the magnitude and correlates of strong intentions to test for HIV in the upcoming year and to use an OTCRT if it became available.

METHODS

Recruitment

Conducted in collaboration with 6 public health departments over a 16-week period in 2007, WHBS was an internet-based survey of risk and preventive behaviors of MSM who reported residing in the following metropolitan (project) areas: Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco. Banner advertisements were used to recruit men who accessed 16 MSM web sites. Designed and approved by each participating health department, banner advertisements appeared systematically (e.g., to every third visitor) and encouraged men to participate. When an internet user clicked on the banner, the user was assigned a unique survey identification number and was sent directly to the WHBS eligibility web page. A count of banner advertisements appearances (impressions) was available from the following 7 websites that yielded 89.5% of the total number of completed MSM interviews: BGCOnlin, BigMuscle, Dlist, Friendster, Gay.com, Manhunt, and MySpace.

Persons who reported being male at birth, at least 18 years of age, and residing in one of the project areas were eligible to participate. Eligible persons were sent directly to a consent web page designed and approved by the health department of the reported city of residence. Ineligible persons were sent directly to a web page containing information about local HIV services. Ineligible persons could not use the “back” arrow on their internet browser to reenter the site and their assigned identification number expired immediately. A count of persons who began and who completed the eligibility screen was recorded, including reasons for ineligibility.

At the consent web page, eligible persons were asked to check a box stating that they read the information about WHBS and agreed to participate in a 10- to 15-minute anonymous survey without reimbursement. Survey questions were grouped on separate pages and participants were required to submit their responses to proceed to the next page. Participants could view and make corrections to any of their previous answers, and they could refuse to answer any survey question by selecting a “refuse to answer” option. All WHBS web pages were written in English at or below the seventh grade reading level.

Measures

The survey assessed participant characteristics within the following 7 domains: (1) socio-demographic (age, race/ethnicity, highest level of education achieved, sexual identity); (2) attendance at 12 types of MSM venues (e.g., bars, dance clubs, sex establishments); (3) internet usage and purpose (e.g., hours per week, to meet sex partners); (4) risk behavior (e.g., drug use; number of male sex partners met via the internet or with whom participants had unprotected anal intercourse (UAI); diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease); (5) exposure to HIV-prevention services (Appendix); (6) HIV testing and the most important (main) reason for not testing (Appendix); and (7) HIV-testing intentions. All variables within domains 2 to 6 were assessed in the year before the date of interview; for domain 6, we also assessed whether participants had ever tested for HIV.

Two HIV-testing intentions were measured using the same 4-point response scale (“very likely,” “somewhat likely,” “somewhat unlikely,” “very unlikely”). Intention to test for HIV was assessed with the following question: “How likely is it that you will get tested for HIV in the next 12 months?” All participants except those who responded “very unlikely” were asked to respond to the second intention measure: “A new type of HIV home testing kit may soon be available in drug stores or by mail. This new home test kit would use a swab from your mouth (no blood) and would let you know at once if you were infected with HIV. If the new home test kit was available, how likely is it that you would use it?” Strong intention to test in the next year or to use an OTCRT was defined as responding “very likely” to the respective question.

Analyses

All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC), and were restricted to participants who identified as male, and who reported having never tested for HIV and having had sex with another male in the past year. The univariate distribution of socio-demographic characteristics, internet usage, venue attendance, risk behavior, exposure to HIV-prevention services, main reasons for not testing, and testing intentions were first evaluated by city of residence. Because similar distributions were observed across cities, all subsequent analyses were conducted on the combined dataset.

Contingency table analyses using chi-squared tests, Cochran-Armitage trend tests, or odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were performed to evaluate correlates of main reasons for not HIV testing, and strong intention to test for HIV in the next year and to use an OTCRT if it became available. The distributions of the 3 most frequently reported main reasons for not testing are provided in figures for the following identified correlates: age group, race/ethnicity, number of male UAI partners (0, 1, >1), and number of times website(s) were visited for HIV information (0, 1, >1).

Logistic-regression analyses were conducted to identify independent correlates of strong intention to test for HIV. Variables selected for inclusion in the full logistic-regression model included age group, race/ethnicity, and level of education, and other variables that were associated (P < 0.05) with strong intention in contingency-table analyses. A manual, stepwise procedure was used to remove statistically nonsignificant variables from the model only after meaningful confounding (≥10% change in adjusted OR) of retained covariates was ruled out. We report crude and adjusted OR and 95% CI for variables included in the full and final models, respectively.

To evaluate correlates of strong intention to use an OTCRT, contingency-table analyses were stratified by strength of intention to test for HIV in the next year (available strata: “very likely,” “somewhat likely,” “somewhat unlikely”). Strong intention to use an OTCRT was not reported for all data combined because it was not assessed of NTMSM who reported that it was “very unlikely” they would test for HIV in the next year.

RESULTS

Recruitment Outcomes and Derivation of Analytical Sample

Of 76,294 persons who accessed the WHBS website and began the eligibility screen, 44,801 (58.7%) completed the screen, of whom 31,016 (69.2%) were ineligible due to residence (n = 30,553; 98.5% of ineligible), or age <18 years or female at birth (n = 463; 1.5% of ineligible). Of 13,785 (30.8%) eligible persons, 7296 (52.9%) completed the survey, of whom 6015 (82.4%) identified as male and reported having sex with another man in the previous 12 months.

From 7 websites that tracked banner advertisements impressions, of 21,862,924 impressions, 38,431 (0.18%) persons completed the eligibility screen, 12,304 were eligible (32.0% of screened), 6523 completed the survey (53.0% of eligible), and 5385 identified as male and reported having sex with another man in the previous 12 months (89.5% of total MSM participants).

Of the 6015 MSM, 1038 (17.3%) reported that they had never tested for HIV—of whom 87 (8.4%) reported not knowing whether they would test for HIV in the next year and 5 (0.5%) refused to report their HIV-testing intentions. Analyses were restricted to the 946 NTMSM on whom analyzable responses to HIV-testing intentions were obtained.

Participant Characteristics

Of the 946 NTMSM, most were <25 years of age, white, and college educated; nearly all identified as gay or bisexual; many used the internet to socialize and meet sex partners; and most had attended multiple types of MSM venues; 123 (13.0%) reported not attending any MSM venue in the past year (Table 1). Many NTMSM reported attending dance clubs (54.9%), bars (49.1%), and sex establishments (34.1%); few reported attending gay-pride events (12.3%) and raves or circuit parties (11.2%). Many NTMSM reported having multiple male sex partners and UAI, and although few had participated in in-person or online HIV-prevention sessions, approximately half had received free condoms and nearly half used the internet to obtain information about HIV and safer sex (Table 1).

TABLE 1
TABLE 1:
Characteristics of an Internet Sample of 946 Men Who Have Sex With Men Who Have Never Tested for HIV, 6 US Cities, 2007

Reasons for Not Testing

Among NTMSM, main reasons for not testing for HIV in the past year were low perceived risk for infection (32.2%), structural barriers (25.1%), fear of testing positive (18.1%), and worry about loss of confidentiality (5.8%) (Table 1). Of the 305 NTMSM who had not tested because of low perceived risk in the past year, during that year, 34.9% had used noninjection drugs, 52.5% had >1 male internet partners, 56.4% had ≥2 male sex partners, and 37.4% had UAI. Of the 237 NTMSM who reported structural barriers as their main reason for not testing, 42.2%, 27.4%, 25.3%, and 5.1% reported not knowing where, or not having the money, time, or transportation to test, respectively.

Age Group.

Reporting structural barriers as a main reason for not testing decreased with increasing age (trend test, P < 0.001) (Fig. 1). Not testing because of low perceived risk (P = 0.319) and fear of testing positive (P = 0.689) did not vary significantly by age group.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.:
Distribution of the 3 most important reasons for not testing in the past year in an internet sample of 946 men who have sex with men and who have never tested for HIV, by age group and race/ethnicity, 6 US cities, 2007. *Did not know where or did not have the time, transportation, or money to test for HIV.

Race/Ethnicity.

Compared with white NTMSM, proportionally more black (37.0% vs. 14.8%; OR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.04–5.60) and Hispanic (21.3% vs. 14.8%; OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.02–2.39) NTMSM reported fear of testing positive as a main reason for not testing (Fig. 1). Not testing because of low perceived risk (P = 0.406) and structural barriers (P = 0.106) did not vary significantly by race/ethnicity.

Male UAI Partners.

Reporting low perceived risk decreased (trend test, P < 0.001), and reporting structural barriers (trend test, P = 0.008) and fear of testing positive (trend test, P < 0.001) increased, with increased number of UAI partners (Fig. 2).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.:
Distribution of the 3 most important reasons for not testing in the past year in an internet sample of 946 men who have sex with men and who have never tested for HIV, by number of male UAI partners and use of the internet to obtain HIV information, 6 US cities, 2007 (categories do not add to 946 because of missing data). *Did not know where or did not have the time, transportation, or money to test for HIV. In the past 12 months. UAI indicates unprotected anal intercourse.

Use of the Internet for HIV Information.

Reporting low perceived risk decreased (trend test, P = 0.018) and reporting fear of testing positive increased (trend test, P < 0.001) with increased HIV internet-use (Fig. 1). Reporting structural barriers did not vary significantly with increased HIV internet-use (P = 0.384).

Intention to Test for HIV

Approximately one-quarter of NTMSM reported that it was very likely they would test for HIV in the next year (Table 1). In the final logistic-regression model, increased adjusted odds for strong testing intention were observed among NTMSM aged 18 to 24 years or of black or Hispanic race/ethnicity, and among NTMSM who reported attending multiple types of MSM venues, participating in an in-person HIV-prevention session, visiting websites for HIV information more than once, using noninjection drugs, having multiple male sex partners, and main reasons for not testing other than low perceived risk (Table 2).

TABLE 2
TABLE 2:
Crude and Adjusted Associations With Strong Intention to Test for HIV in the Next Year in an Internet Sample of 946 MSM Who Have Never Tested for HIV, 6 US Cities, 2007

Potential Use of an OTCRT

Compared with NTMSM who were somewhat unlikely to test for HIV in the next year, proportionally more NTMSM who were somewhat likely (47.4% vs. 76.5%; OR, 3.62; 95% CI, 2.39–5.49) and very likely (47.4% vs. 85.6%; OR, 6.60; 95% CI, 4.09–10.66) to test reported strong intentions to use an OTCRT if it was available. In stratified analyses, no socio-demographic or risk variables were consistently associated with strong intentions to use an OTCRT across intentions to test in the upcoming year (Table 3).

TABLE 3
TABLE 3:
Strong Intention to Use an Over-the-Counter Rapid HIV Test (OTCRT) (Assuming Availability) in an Internet Sample of MSM Who Have Never Tested for HIV, by Strength of Intention to Test for HIV in the Next Year, 6 US Cities, 2007

DISCUSSION

In an internet survey of MSM from 6 US cities in 2007, we found that of a large sample of MSM who had never tested for HIV, most were under 25 years of age, many reported considerable HIV risks in the past year, and only one-quarter reported strong intentions to test for HIV in the upcoming year. Many NTMSM, however, attended multiple types of MSM venues and used the internet for HIV information, and are thus plausibly accessible to outreach-testing services and online interventions. Interestingly, even among NTMSM with low testing intentions, many reported they would use an OTCRT if it was available.

Similar to surveys that included ever-tested MSM, we also found that low perceived risk, structural barriers, and fear of testing positive were the most frequently reported main reasons for not testing, and that concern about loss of confidentiality was infrequently reported as a main reason.6–9,24–27 We also found, however, that the distribution of the 3 most important reasons for not testing varied considerably by socio-demographic, risk, and internet-use characteristics. Thus, to facilitate HIV testing of diverse NTMSM, only a minority of whom hold strong testing intentions, our findings suggest that prevention programs should expand testing services and interventions tailored to address this variation.35–37

Low Perceived Risk

Low perceived risk was the most frequently reported main reason for not testing among NTMSM of all age groups, and of white and Hispanic race/ethnicity. However, many NTMSM who reported low perceived risk as a main reason for not testing also reported considerable risk behavior, and among NTMSM who reported 1 male UAI partner in the past year, low perceived risk remained the most frequently reported reason for not testing. Notably, very few (14.8%) NTMSM who reported low perceived risk as the main reason for not testing in the past year held strong intentions to test for HIV in the upcoming year.

Many NTMSM who had 1 male UAI partner may have perceived being at low risk because their UAI partners were main partners or because they “knew” their UAI partners were HIV-negative.40–45 These NTMSM, however, remain at substantial HIV risk because of the high prevalence of undiagnosed HIV infection among MSM, and that many undiagnosed, HIV-infected MSM unintentionally disclose being “HIV- negative” and engage in UAI because they perceive themselves or their partners at low risk for infection.6,7,46–50

Collectively, these findings underscore the need for targeted test-promotion efforts for NTMSM who report not testing because of low perceived risk, particularly for those who engage in UAI. Interventions designed to heighten uncertainty of risk and perceived vulnerability might persuade some NTMSM who do not test because of perceived low risk; however, these interventions may only be effective when coupled with messages that convey the value of early HIV diagnosis on personal health and well being, and that have explicit information on available testing services.36,51,52 The increased uptake of HIV testing from the “Gimme 5 Minutes” social marketing campaign targeting young black MSM in London, for example, was attributed, in part, to the provision of detailed information on where and when to test, and how results would be made available.52

Many MSM may also report being at low risk as a rationalization for avoiding testing and as a coping strategy to reduce the stress and fear from knowingly engaging in HIV risks.27,53–56 Because messages designed to increase perceived vulnerability may threaten self-image and induce defensiveness,51,57 prevention programs should also consider alternative promotional strategies. Though further research is necessary, interventions that preserve self-image, induce hypocrisy, or incorporate affective outcomes such as anticipated regret have been effective in reducing risk behaviors and might also be effective in increasing the uptake of testing among NTMSM.57–62

Fear of Testing Positive

Fear of testing positive was the most frequently reported main reason for not testing among NTMSM who were of black race and who reported multiple male UAI partners, 2 groups of NTMSM at considerable risk for undiagnosed HIV infection.6,7,47 These findings underscore the need for programs to investigate and address underlying causes of fears about testing HIV-positive, particularly for these important subgroups.

Although heightened risk perception probably helps explain fear of testing positive among NTMSM with multiple UAI partners, one study suggests that risk perceptions of young black and white MSM are similar.6,63 Compared with young white MSM, however, young black and Hispanic MSM might be less aware of the efficacy and safety of antiretroviral therapy (ART), and of the availability of medical care for those with limited resources.64 Thus, prevention programs should consider increasing awareness of the benefits and availability ART, particularly targeting NTMSM of black and Hispanic race/ethnicity and who report multiple UAI partners. The ACT against AIDS campaign, for example, is designed to increase testing in specific populations such as black and Hispanic MSM by conveying, in part, the benefits of early HIV diagnosis, the efficacy of ART to prolong quality life, and information about treatment programs for those without health insurance.65

Structural Barriers

Not surprisingly, structural barriers were frequently reported as a main reason for not testing among younger and Hispanic NTMSM, groups that may have fewer resources to test or that might be less integrated in MSM communities and less aware of free HIV-testing services. We also found that structural barriers was 1 of 2 most frequently reported main reasons for not testing among NTMSM who reported UAI, suggesting that expanded delivery of testing services might benefit those NTMSM most in need of testing.

We were encouraged that most NTMSM attended multiple types of MSM venues and that attendance at multiple venues was associated with strong testing intentions. Attendance at diverse MSM venues could be a proxy for increased social integration within MSM communities or for greater acceptance or openness about homosexuality, factors known to be associated with HIV testing.8,11,23,27,66 Our findings suggest that expanding community-based testing at MSM venues, particularly those attended by young and Hispanic MSM, might be particularly helpful to facilitate testing of NTMSM who have not tested because of structural barriers. With the availability of rapid HIV tests, outreach testing has become more feasible. For example, over a 2-year period, 8 community-based organizations in 7 US cities provided rapid HIV testing services at bars, bathhouses, parks, and other outreach settings for 23,900 persons, 7037 (30%) of whom had never previously tested for HIV.34

Implications for Internet-Based Interventions

We found that approximately half of NTMSM used the internet to obtain information about HIV and that more frequent use of the internet for this purpose was (1) associated directly with strong testing intentions, and (2) associated inversely with low perceived risk and directly with fear of testing positive (as main reasons for not testing). These associations might be explained by several motivational health-behavior theories under which persons who perceive greater threat from HIV (i.e., greater perceived risk and fear) have greater motivation for protective behavior, and thus would be more likely to seek information about HIV and to formulate intentions to engage in protective behavior such as testing for HIV.35,36,51,67,68

Our findings, thus, suggest that internet-based test promotion programs might be effective in facilitating testing of many NTMSM.28–30 In the only study found of its kind, a recent randomized controlled trial found that an internet-based video intervention was more effective than a text-alone intervention in increasing both intentions and uptake of HIV testing among non-gay identified MSM in Lima, Peru. Notably, the majority of MSM who participated reported having never tested for HIV.69

Prevention programs should also consider how their websites might be adapted to facilitate testing of NTMSM. Home pages, for example, might encourage users who have not tested in the past year to enter portals specific to a main reason for not testing. Users entering these portals could then be provided more personally relevant information and motivational messages. Because structural barriers were a prevalent reason for not testing, prevention websites should also provide “one-click” access to pages that have information in both English and Spanish on the locations and hours of operation of free testing services.

Limitations

The findings in this report are subject to several important limitations. First, since our survey was restricted to a convenience, internet-based sample of NTMSM from 6 US cities, the extent to which our findings may generalize to other groups of NTMSM is unknown. As in other internet surveys, the magnitude and direction of recruitment bias in our survey cannot be assessed because the number and characteristics of NTMSM who observed banner advertisements and who chose not to participate is unknown. However, because our survey employed standard banner advertisements that obtained a click-through rate (0.18%) commensurate with internet marketing (median click-through rate of 5 banner-size categories, 0.18%, range: 0.10%–0.37%),70 a systematic bias of recruiting only very experienced or savvy internet users is unlikely.

Second, because WHBS was an internet-based, anonymous survey, some individuals may have participated more than once. However, WHBS did not reimburse participants for their time, and thus avoided a major incentive for repeat participation. Other measures taken to avoid repeat participation included (1) conducting WHBS over a short 16-week period; (2) systematically, rather than uniformly, presenting banner advertisements to website visitors; (3) restricting participation to persons who clicked on banner advertisements rather than allowing persons to search for and access the WHBS website directly; and (4) restricting access to the WHBS website to those with a unique identification number that expired after survey completion and that could not be used twice.

Third, the validity of our measures to predict testing behavior is unknown. Because our measures did not include test costs or appeals for a realistic appraisal of testing intentions, it is possible that our reported intentions might overestimate testing behavior, particularly with an OTCRT which may be expensive to purchase. Additionally, some participants may have overestimated their intentions to use an OTCRT because our measure did not specify the requirement for supplemental confirmatory testing for those who test HIV-positive with an OTCRT.1,38,71 To help reduce bias, we provided the most conservative estimate our data allowed by excluding “somewhat likely” responses from our defined intention outcomes.

Fourth, because our survey was cross-sectional, identified correlates of testing intentions may not be causal. For example, prior exposure to in-person or online prevention services may reflect the fact that MSM with stronger testing intentions were more likely to seek out these services. Finally, we were unable to report potential use of an OTCRT among those NTMSM who held the weakest testing intention.

Public Health Significance and Potential Uptake of OTCRT

Our finding that approximately 1 in 6 (17%) predominately young MSM had never tested for HIV, similar to 22% of 15- to 25-year-old MSM surveyed in 10 US cities in 1999 and 16% of 18- to 24-year-old MSM in 15 US cities in 2003–2005, is remarkable in light of considerable investments in the past 2 decades to increase testing among MSM.11,26,72 Although we were encouraged that strong testing intention was associated with black and Hispanic race/ethnicity and increased risk behavior, findings that might be attributed, in part, to these investments, more effective efforts are clearly needed.72 Recent policy changes1 and new social-marketing campaigns65 will hopefully reduce the delay in testing among NTMSM; however, new HIV testing applications could also play an important role.38,39

In our large sample of NTMSM, many reported they would use an OTCRT if it was available, even among those who thought it was unlikely they would test in the upcoming year under currently available options. That an OTCRT might be used among many NTMSM who might not test otherwise is plausible given the large uptake of rapid tests in the United States, and that an inexpensive home test that provides accurate and rapid results are test attributes with the highest reported preference among MSM.20,21,73–75 Thus, our findings and those of others suggest potential value in evaluating public-health applications of OTCRT, if approved, to increase the uptake of testing among MSM. In the interim, to help reduce late HIV diagnoses and transmissions attributed to undiagnosed infection, prevention programs should expand delivery of interventions and services tailored to address the diversity of reasons for not testing among NTMSM.

APPENDIX

Selected Measures and Variable Definitions

Exposure to HIV Prevention Services.

“Attended in-person session” was defined as responding “yes” to either of the following 2 questions: “In the past 12 months, not including when you may have been tested for HIV, have you had a one-on-one conversation with an outreach worker, counselor, or prevention program worker about ways to protect yourself or your partners from getting HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases?” “In the past 12 months, have you been a participant in any sessions involving a small group of people to talk about ways to protect yourself or your partners from getting HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases?”

“Received free condoms” was defined as responding “yes” to the following question: “In the past 12 months, have you received free condoms?”

“Visited website(s) for HIV information” was defined as responding “one time” or “more than one time” to the following question: “In the past 12 months, how often have you visited a website for information about HIV?”

“Visited website(s) for safer sex information” was defined as responding “one time” or “more than one time” to the following question: “In the past 12 months, how often have you visited a website for information about safer sex?”

“Approached online by HIV prevention worker” was defined as responding “one time” or “more than one time” to the following question: “In the past 12 months, how often have you been approached online by someone doing HIV prevention work?”

“Participated in online HIV prevention chat session” was defined as responding “one time” or “more than one time” to the following question: “In the past 12 months, how often have you participated in or observed an online chat session related to HIV prevention?”

Main Reason for Not Testing for HIV.

Main reason for not testing for HIV was defined as choosing “Yes” to 1 of 11 available reasons provided after the following statement: “Which of these reasons was the most important reason you have not been tested for HIV in the past 12 months?” “Yes” responses were grouped into 1 of 5 categories (noted in parentheses).

  1. “Because you haven't done anything to get HIV?” (Low perceived risk for HIV).
  2. “Because you don't know where to go to get tested?” (Structural barriers).
  3. “Because you couldn't get transportation to a testing place?” (Structural barriers).
  4. “Because you didn't have time?” (Structural barriers).
  5. “Because you didn't have the money or the insurance to pay for the test?” (Structural barriers).
  6. “Because you were afraid of finding out that you had HIV?” (Fear of testing positive).
  7. “Because you were worried your name would be reported to the government if you tested positive?” (Worried about loss of confidentiality).
  8. “Because you were worried someone would find out about your test results?” (Worried about loss of confidentiality).
  9. “Because you were afraid of losing your job, insurance, housing, family, or friends if people found out you tested positive?” (Worried about loss of confidentiality).
  10. “Because you don't like needles?” (Other reason).
  11. “Other important reason why you have not been tested for HIV in the past 12 months.” (Other reason).
  12. “Don't know.”
  13. “Refuse to answer.”

Note: Information on main reason for not testing was not provided by NTMSM (n = 66) who chose “No” to all of the above reasons including 11. These 66 NTMSM were also categorized as having an “other reason.”

REFERENCES

1.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Revised recommendations for HIV testing of adults, adolescents, and pregnant women in health-care settings. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2006; 55(RR-14):1–16.
2.Marks G, Crepaz N, Janssen R. Estimating sexual transmission of HIV from persons aware and unaware that they are infected with the virus in the United States. AIDS 2006; 20:1447–1450.
3.Walensky RP, Freedberg KA, Weinstein MC, et al. Cost-effectiveness of HIV testing and treatment in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45(suppl 4):S248–S254.
4.Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration. Life expectancy of individuals on combination antiretroviral therapy in high-income countries: A collaborative analysis of 14 cohort studies. Lancet 2008; 372:293–299.
5.Hall IH, Song R, Rhodes P, et al. Estimation of HIV incidence in the United States. JAMA 2008; 300:520–529.
6.MacKellar DA, Valleroy LA, Secura GM, et al. Unrecognized HIV infection, risk behaviors, and perceptions of risk among young men who have sex with men. Opportunities for advancing HIV prevention in the third decade of HIV/AIDS. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005; 38:603–614.
7.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV prevalence, unrecognized infection, and HIV testing among men who have sex with men—five US cities, June 2004–April 2005. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2005; 54:597–601.
8.MacKellar DA, Valleroy LA, Secura GM, et al. Repeat HIV testing, risk behaviors, and HIV seroconversion among young men who have sex with men. A call to monitor and improve the practice of prevention. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002; 29:76–85.
9.Mimiaga MJ, Reisner SL, Bland S, et al. Health system and personal barriers resulting in decreased utilization of HIV and STD testing services among at-risk black men who have sex with men in Massachusetts. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2009; 23:825–835.
10.Maguen S, Armistead LP, Kalichman S. Predictors of HIV antibody testing among gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. J Adolesc Health 2000; 26:252–257.
11.Sumartojo E, Lyles C, Choi K, et al. Prevalence and correlates of HIV testing in a multi-site sample of young men who have sex with men. AIDS Care 2008; 20:1–14.
12.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Late HIV testing–34 states, 1996–2005. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2009; 58:661–665.
13.Heckman TG, Kelly JA, Roffman RA, et al. Psychosocial differences between recently HIV tested and non-tested gay men who reside in smaller US cities. Int J STD AIDS 1995; 6:436–440.
14.Roffman RA, Kalichman SC, Kelly JA, et al. HIV antibody testing of gay men in smaller US cities. AIDS Care 1995; 7:405–413.
15.McFarland W, Fischer-Ponce L, Katz MH. Repeat negative human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing in San Francisco: Magnitude and characteristics. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 142:719–723.
16.Phillips KA, Paul J, Kegeles S, et al. Predictors of repeat HIV testing among gay and bisexual men. AIDS 1995; 9:769–775.
17.Povinelli M, Remafedi G, Tao G. Trends and predictors of human immunodeficiency virus antibody testing by homosexual and bisexual adolescent males, 1989–1994. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996; 150:33–38.
18.Kalichman SC, Shaper PE, Belcher L, et al. It's like a regular part of gay life: Repeat HIV antibody testing among gay and bisexual men. AIDS Educ Prev 1997; 9(suppl B):41–51.
19.Leaity S, Sherr L, Wells H, et al. Repeat HIV testing: High-risk behavior or risk reduction strategy?. AIDS 2000; 14:547–552.
20.Spielberg F, Kurth A, Gorbach PM, et al. Moving from apprehension to action: HIV counseling and testing preferences in three at-risk populations. AIDS Educ Prev 2001; 13:524–540.
21.Spielberg F, Branson BM, Goldbaum GM, et al. Overcoming barriers to HIV testing: Preferences for new strategies among clients of a needle exchange, a sexually transmitted disease clinic, and sex venues for men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2003; 32:318–328.
22.Fernandez MI, Perrino T, Bowen GS, et al. Repeat HIV testing among Hispanic men who have sex with men—a sign of risk, prevention, or reassurance?. AIDS Educ Prev 2003; 15(suppl A):105–116.
23.MacKellar DA, Valleroy LA, Anderson JE, et al. Recent HIV testing among young men who have sex with men: Correlates, contexts, and HIV seroconversion. Sex Transm Dis 2006; 33:183–192.
24.Campsmith ML, Goldbaum GM, Brackbill RM, et al. HIV testing among men who have sex with men–results of a telephone survey. Prev Med 1997; 26:839–844.
25.Kellerman SE, Lehman JS, Lansky A, et al. HIV testing within at-risk populations in the United States and the reasons for seeking or avoiding HIV testing. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002; 31:202–210.
26.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) risk, prevention, and testing behaviors, United States, national HIV behavioral surveillance system: Men who have sex with men, November 2003–April 2005. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Surveill Summ 2006; 55(SS-6):6.
27.Mimiaga MJ, Goldhammer H, Belanoff C, et al. Men who have sex with men: perceptions about sexual risk, HIV and sexually transmitted disease testing, and provider communication. Sex Transm Dis 2007; 34:113–119.
28.Noar SM, Black HG, Pierce LB. Efficacy of computer technology-based HIV prevention interventions: a meta-analysis. AIDS 2009; 23:107–115.
29.Moskowitz DA, Melton D, Owczarzak J. PowerON: The use of instant message counseling and the internet to facilitate HIV/STD education and prevention. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 77:20–26.
30.Mikolajczak J, Kok G, Hospers HJ. Queermasters: Developing a theory- and evidence-based internet HIV-prevention intervention to promote HIV-testing among men who have sex with men (MSM). Appl Psychol 2008; 57:681–697.
31.Bingham TA, Secura GM, Behel SK, et al. HIV risk factors reported by two samples of male bathhouse attendees in Los Angeles, California, 2001–2002. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35:631–636.
32.Raymond HF, Bingham T, McFarland W. Locating unrecognized HIV infections among men who have sex with men: San Francisco and Los Angeles. AIDS Educ Prev 2008; 20:408–419.
33.Murrill CS, Liu K, Guilin V, et al. HIV prevalence and associated risk behaviors in New York City's house ball community. Am J Public Health 2008; 98:1074–1080.
34.Bowles KE, Clark HA, Tai E, et al. Implementing rapid HIV testing in outreach and community settings: Results from an advancing HIV prevention demonstration project conducted in seven US cities. Public Health Rep 2008; 123(suppl 3):78–85.
35.Armitage CJ, Conner M. Social cognition models and health behaviour: A structured review. Psychol Health 2000; 15:173–189.
36.Hullett CR. Using functional theory to promote HIV testing: The impact of value-expressive messages, uncertainty, and fear. Health Commun 2006; 20:57–67.
37.Noar SM, Palmgreen P, Chabot M, et al. A 10-year systematic review of HIV/AIDS mass communication campaigns: Have we made progress?. J Health Commun 2009; 14:15–42.
38.Blood Products Advisory Committee. Issue summary: Public health need and performance characteristics for over-the-counter home-use HIV test kits, 2009. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/BloodVaccinesandOtherBiologics/BloodProductsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM189020.pdf.
39.OraSure Technologies Inc. Press release: OraSure Technologies participates in BPAC meeting on HIV over-the-counter test, 2009. Available at: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=99740&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1356910&highlight=.
40.Kippax S, Noble J, Prestage G, et al. Sexual negotiation in the AIDS era: Negotiated safety revisited. AIDS 1997; 11:191–197.
41.Hoff CC, Stall R, Paul J, et al. Differences in sexual behavior among HIV discordant and concordant gay men in primary relationships. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1997; 14:72–78.
42.Davidovich U, de Wit JB, Stroebe W. Assessing sexual risk behaviour of young gay men in primary relationships: The incorporation of negotiated safety and negotiated safety compliance. AIDS 2000; 14:701–706.
43.Crawford JM, Rodden P, Kippax S, et al. Negotiated safety and other agreements between men in relationships: Risk practices redefined. Int J STD AIDS 2001; 12:164–170.
44.Guzman R, Colfax GN, Wheeler S, et al. Negotiated safety relationships and sexual behavior among a diverse sample of HIV-negative men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005; 38:82–86.
45.Frost DM, Stirratt MJ, Ouellette SC. Understanding why gay men seek HIV-seroconcordant partners: Intimacy and risk reduction motivations. Cult Health Sex 2008; 10:513–527.
46.MacKellar DA, Valleroy LA, Behel S, et al. Unintentional HIV exposures from young men who have sex with men who disclose being HIV-negative. AIDS 2006; 20:1637–1644.
47.Koblin BA, Husnik MJ, Colfax G, et al. Risk factors for HIV infection among men who have sex with men. AIDS 2006; 20:731–739.
48.Golden MR, Stekler J, Hughes JP, et al. HIV serosorting in men who have sex with men: Is it safe?. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2008; 49:212–218.
49.Jin F, Crawford J, Prestage GP, et al. Unprotected anal intercourse, risk reduction behaviours, and subsequent HIV infection in a cohort of homosexual men. AIDS 2009; 23:243–252.
50.Sullivan PS, Salazar L, Buchbinder S, et al. Estimating the proportion of HIV transmissions from main sex partners among men who have sex with men in five US cities. AIDS 2009; 23:1153–1162.
51.Witte K, Allen M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav 2000; 27:591–615.
52.McOwan A, Gilleece Y, Chislett L, et al. Can targeted HIV testing campaigns alter health-seeking behaviour?. AIDS Care 2002; 14:385–390.
53.Aronson E. The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. In: Berkowitz L, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1969.
54.Offir JT, Fisher JD, Williams SS, et al. Reasons for inconsistent AIDS-preventive behaviors among gay men. J Sex Res 1993; 30:62–69.
55.Mikolajczak J, Hospers HJ, Kok G. Reasons for not taking an HIV-test among untested men who have sex with men: An internet study. AIDS Behav 2006; 10:431–435.
56.Gold RS, Karantzas G. Thought process associated with reluctance in gay men to be tested for HIV. Int J STD AIDS 2008; 19:775–779.
57.Sherman DK, Nelson LD, Steele CM. Do messages about health risks threaten the self? Increasing the acceptance of threatening health messages via self-affirmation. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2000; 26:1046–1058.
58.Aronson E, Fried C, Stone J. Overcoming denial and increasing the intention to use condoms through the induction of hypocrisy. Am J Public Health 1991; 81:1636–1638.
59.Stone J, Aronson E, Craing AL, et al. Inducing hypocrisy as a means of encouraging young adults to use condoms. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1994; 20:116–128.
60.Thompson SC, Kyle D, Swan J, et al. Increasing condom use by undermining perceived invulnerability to HIV. AIDS Educ Prev 2002; 14:505–514.
61.Richard R, van der Pligt J, de Vries N. Anticipated regret and time perspective: Changing sexual risk-taking behavior. J Behav Decis Mak 1996; 9:185–199.
62.Sandberg T, Conner M. Anticipated regret as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Br J Soc Psychol 2008; 47:589–606.
63.MacKellar DA, Valleroy L, Secura G, et al. Perceptions of lifetime risk and actual risk for acquiring HIV among young men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav 2007; 11:263–270.
64.Koblin BA, Perdue T, Ren L, et al. Attitudes about combination HIV therapies: The next generation of gay men at risk. J Urban Health 2003; 80:510–519.
65.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Act against AIDS campaign. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/aaa/index.htm.
66.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/STD risks in young men who have sex with men who do not disclose their sexual orientation—six US cities, 1994–2000. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2003; 52:81–85.
67.Becker MH. The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Educ Monogr 1974; 2:324–508.
68.Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW. Protection motivation theory and preventive health: Beyond the health belief model. Health Educ Res 1986; 1:153–161.
69.Blas MM, Alva IE, Carcamo CP, et al. Effect of an online video-based intervention to increase HIV testing in men who have sex with men in Peru. PLoS ONE 2010; 5:e10448.
70.Johnson A. Banner advertising: What's a good click-through rate? Available at: http://www.kikabink.com/news/banner-advertising-whats-a-good-click-through-rate/.
71.Brown TC, Ajzen I, Hrubes D. Further tests of entreaties to avoid hypothetical bias in referendum contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manage 2003; 46:353–361.
72.Sutton MY, Jones RL, Wolitski RJ, et al. A review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's response to the HIV/AIDS crisis among blacks in the United States, 1981–2009. Am J Public Health 2009; 99:S351–S359.
73.San Antonio-Gaddy M, Richardson-Moore A, Burstein GR, et al. Rapid HIV antibody testing in the New York State anonymous HIV counseling and testing program: Experience from the field. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2006; 43:446–450.
74.Spielberg F, Branson BM, Goldbaum GM, et al. Choosing HIV counseling and testing strategies for outreach settings: A randomized trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005; 38:348–355.
75.Phillips KA, Maddala T, Johnson R. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: An application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002; 37:1681–1705.
© Copyright 2011 American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association