Comparing study populations of men who have sex with men: Evaluating consistency within repeat studies and across studies in the Seattle area using different recruitment methodologies

AIDS and Behavior

Volumn 18, Issue SUPPL. 3, 2014, Pages

  Burt, Richard D ^a   Oster, Alexandra M ^b   Golden, Mathew R ^a,c   Thiede, Hanne ^a  

^a HIV/STD Program   (United States)

^b CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

HIV prevention; MSM; RDD; Recruitment methods; VDTS

Indexed keywords

ADULT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR; HIV INFECTIONS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; MALE HOMOSEXUALITY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PATIENT SELECTION; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOCIOECONOMICS; WASHINGTON;

ADULT; DATA COLLECTION; HIV INFECTIONS; HOMOSEXUALITY, MALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PATIENT SELECTION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK-TAKING; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; WASHINGTON;

EID: 84898861460     PISSN: 10907165     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10461-013-0568-z     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Purcell DW, Johnson CH, Lansky A, Prejean J, Stein R, Denning P, et al. Estimating the population size of men who have sex with men in the United States to obtain HIV and syphilis rates. Open AIDS J. 2012;6(S1):98-107.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: HIV/AIDS surveillance report, vol 22. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/ reports (2010). Accessed 12 June 2012.
3. Gottlieb SL, Pope V, Sternberg MR, McQuilland GM, Beltrami JF, Berman SM, et al. Prevalence of syphilis seroreactivity in the United States: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 2001-2004. Sex Transm Dis. 2008;35(5):507-11.
4. National Center for Health Statistics: National survey of family growth, online documents. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg.htm. Accessed 9 July 2012.
5. National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. General Social Survey: GSS study description. Available from: http://www3.norc.org/ gss+website/. Accessed 9 Dec 2012.
6. Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathorn D. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. AIDS. 2005;19(Suppl 2):S67-72.
7. Semaan S, Lauby J, Liebman J. Street and network sampling in evaluation studies of HIV risk-reduction interventions. AIDS Rev. 2002;4(4):213-23.
8. Gile KJ, Handcock MS. Respondent-driven sampling: an assessment of current methodology. Sociol Methodol. 2010;40(1):285-327.
9. MacKellar DA, Gallagher KM, Finlayson T, Sanchez T, Lansky A, Sullivan PS. Surveillance of HIV risk and prevention behaviors of men who have sex with men - a national application of venue-based, time-space sampling. Public Health Rep. 2007;122(Suppl 1):39-47.
10. Brewer DD, Golden MR, Handsfield HH. Unsafe sexual behavior and correlates of risk in a probability sample of men who have sex with men in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(4):250-5.
11. Menza TW, Kerani RP, Handsfield HH, Golden MR. Stable sexual risk behavior in a rapidly changing risk environment: findings from population-based surveys of men who have sex with men in Seattle, Washington, 2003-2006. AIDS Behav. 2009;15:319-29.
12. Finlayson TJ, Le B, Smith A, Bowles K, Cribbin M, Miles I, et al. HIV risk, prevention and testing behaviors among men who have sex with men - National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System, 21 U.S. cities, United States, 2008. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2011;60(14):1-40.
13. SPSS. SPSS version 20. Chicago: SPSS; 2011.
14. Burt RD, Thiede H. Variations in patterns of sexual risk behavior among Seattle-area MSM based on their HIV status, the HIV status of their partner and partner type. AIDS Behav. 2012;16:599-607.
15. Dodds JP, Mercer CH, Mercey DE, Copas AJ, Johnson AM. Men who have sex with men: a comparison of a probability sample survey and a community based study. Sex Transm Infect. 2006;82(1):86-7.
16. Pollack LM, Osmond DH, Paul JP, Catania JA. Evaluation of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's HIV behavioral surveillance of men who have sex with men: sampling issues. Sex Transm Dis. 2005;32(9):581-9.
17. Schwarcz S, Spindler H, Scheer S, Valleroy L, Lansky A. Assessing representativeness of sampling methods for reaching men who have sex with men: a direct comparison of results obtained from convenience and probability samples. AIDS Behav. 2007;11(4):596-602.
18. Xia Q, Tholandi M, Osmond DH, Pollack LM, Zhou W, Ruiz JD, et al. The effect of venue sampling on estimates of HIV prevalence and sexual risk behaviors in men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(9):545-50.
19. Kerani RP. Personal communication. 12-11-2012.
20. Public Health Seattle & King County: 2010 King County sexually transmitted diseases epidemiology report. Available at: http://www.kingcounty. gov/healthservices/health/communicable/std/statistics.aspx. Accessed 29 Oct 2012.
21. Burt RD, Thiede H. Evaluating consistency in repeat surveys of injection drug users recruited by respondent-driven sampling in the Seattle area: results from the NHBS-IDU1 and NHBS-IDU2 surveys. Ann Epidemiol. 2012;22(5):354-63.
22. Goel S, Salganik MJ. Assessing respondent-driven sampling. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(15):6743-7.
23. Wejnert C, Pham H, Krishna N, Le B, DiNenno E. Estimating design effect and calculating sample size for respondent-driven sampling studies of injection drug users in the United States. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(4):797-806.