Casual Sex among Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) during the Period of Sheltering in Place to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19

  1. Alvaro Francisco Lopes de Sousa
  2. Layze Braz de Oliveira
  3. Artur Acelino Francisco Luz Nunes Queiroz
  4. Herica Emilia Félix de Carvalho
  5. Guilherme Schneider
  6. Emerson Lucas Silva Camargo
  7. Telma Maria Evangelista de Araújo
  8. Sandra Brignol
  9. Isabel Amélia Costa Mendes
  10. Inês Fronteira
  11. Willi McFarland

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objectives: We investigated the extent to which Brazilian and Portuguese Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) had casual sex partners outside their homes during the period of sheltering in place for the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: An online survey was conducted in Brazil and Portugal in April, during the period of social isolation for COVID-19, with a sample of 2361 MSMs. Recruitment was done through meeting apps and Facebook. Results: Most of the sample (53.0%) had casual sex partners during sheltering. Factors that increased the odds of engaging in casual sex in Brazil were having group sex (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.3–3.4), living in an urban area (aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1–2.2), feeling that sheltering had a high impact on daily life (aOR 3.0, 95% CI 1.1–8.3), having casual instead of steady partners (aOR 2.5, 95% CI 1.8–3.5), and not decreasing the number of partners (aOR 6.5, 95% CI 4.2–10.0). In Portugal, the odds of engaging in casual sex increased with using Facebook to find partners (aOR 4.6, 95% CI 3.0–7.2), not decreasing the number of partners (aOR 3.8, 95% CI 2.9–5.9), usually finding partners in physical venues (pre-COVID-19) (aOR 5.4, 95% CI 3.2–8.9), feeling that the isolation had a high impact on daily life (aOR 3.0, 95% CI 1.3–6.7), and HIV-positive serostatus (aOR 11.7, 95% CI 4.7–29.2). Taking PrEP/Truvada to prevent COVID-19 was reported by 12.7% of MSM. Conclusions: The pandemic has not stopped most of our MSM sample from finding sexual partners, with high-risk sexual behaviors continuing.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3390/ijerph18063266
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.07.20113142v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.07.20113142: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This study has several limitations. First, we recognize the data derived from a convenience sample in both countries. Venue-based and peer-referral mechanisms to sample and recruit are harder to logistically accomplish during the COVID-19 epidemic. The site that hosts the form is not able to inform how many subjects were reached, only the amount of access and answers. Secondly, we did not measure variables recognized as important in hindsight, such as exact number of days in sheltering, different sexual practices, and the organization of other events, such as parties where sex may have occurred. Lastly, we did not test for COVID-19 and therefore could not fully link behaviors directly to infection. Furthermore, most questions refer to past events that may be biased by memory.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.07.20113142v1 on medRxiv