COVID-19 infection and vaccination uptake in men and gender-diverse people who have sex with men in the UK: analyses of a large, online community cross-sectional survey (RiiSH-COVID) undertaken November-December 2021.

BACKGROUND: Men and gender-diverse people who have sex with men are disproportionately affected by health conditions associated with increased risk of severe illness due to COVID-19 infection. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey of men and gender-diverse people who have sex with men in the UK recruited via social networking and dating applications from 22 November-12 December 2021. Eligible participants included self-identifying men, transgender women, or gender-diverse individuals assigned male at birth (AMAB), aged ≥ 16, who were UK residents, and self-reported having had sex with an individual AMAB in the last year. We calculated self-reported COVID-19 test-positivity, proportion reporting long COVID, and COVID-19 vaccination uptake anytime from pandemic start to survey completion (November/December 2021). Logistic regression was used to assess sociodemographic, clinical, and behavioural characteristics associated with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) test positivity and complete vaccination (≥ 2 vaccine doses). RESULTS: Among 1,039 participants (88.1% white, median age 41 years [interquartile range: 31-51]), 18.6% (95% CI: 16.3%-21.1%) reported COVID-19 test positivity, 8.3% (95% CI: 6.7%-10.1%) long COVID, and 94.5% (95% CI: 93.3%-96.1%) complete COVID-19 vaccination through late 2021. In multivariable models, COVID-19 test positivity was associated with UK country of residence (aOR: 2.22 [95% CI: 1.26-3.92], England vs outside England) and employment (aOR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.01-2.38], current employment vs not employed). Complete COVID-19 vaccination was associated with age (aOR: 1.04 [95% CI: 1.01-1.06], per increasing year), gender (aOR: 0.26 [95% CI: 0.09-0.72], gender minority vs cisgender), education (aOR: 2.11 [95% CI: 1.12-3.98], degree-level or higher vs below degree-level), employment (aOR: 2.07 [95% CI: 1.08-3.94], current employment vs not employed), relationship status (aOR: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.25-1.00], single vs in a relationship), COVID-19 infection history (aOR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.25-0.88], test positivity or self-perceived infection vs no history), known HPV vaccination (aOR: 3.32 [95% CI: 1.43-7.75]), and low self-worth (aOR: 0.29 [95% CI: 0.15-0.54]). CONCLUSIONS: In this community sample, COVID-19 vaccine uptake was high overall, though lower among younger age-groups, gender minorities, and those with poorer well-being. Efforts are needed to limit COVID-19 related exacerbation of health inequalities in groups who already experience a greater burden of poor health relative to other men who have sex with men.

Sexual behaviour, STI and HIV testing and testing need among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men recruited for online surveys pre/post-COVID-19 restrictions in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: We examined sexual behaviour, sexually transmitted infection (STI) and HIV testing and testing need, and identified associated factors, among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in the UK after COVID-19 restrictions ended, and compared these with 'pre-pandemic' estimates. METHODS: We analysed survey data from GBMSM (N=1039) recruited via social media and Grindr in November-December 2021. We then compared Grindr-recruited 2021 participants (N=437) with those from an equivalent survey fielded in March-May 2017 (N=1902). Questions on sexual behaviour and service use had lookback periods of 3-4 months in both surveys. Unmet testing need was defined as reporting any new male and/or multiple condomless anal sex (CAS) partners without recent STI/HIV testing. Participants were UK residents, GBMSM, aged ≥16 years who reported sex with men in the last year. Multivariable logistic regression identified associated sociodemographic and health-related factors with unmet STI/HIV testing need in 2021, and then for 2017/2021 comparative analyses, adjusting for demographic differences. RESULTS: In 2021, unmet STI and HIV testing need were greater among older GBMSM (aged ≥45 years vs 16-29 years; adjusted OR (aOR): 1.45 and aOR: 1.77, respectively), and lower for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users (vs non-PrEP users; aOR: 0.32 and aOR: 0.23, respectively). Less unmet STI testing need was observed among HIV-positive participants (vs HIV-negative/unknown; aOR: 0.63), and trans and non-binary participants (vs cisgender male; aOR: 0.34). Between 2017 (reference) and 2021, reported sexual risk behaviours increased: ≥1 recent new male sex partner (72.1%-81.1%, aOR: 1.71) and ≥2 recent CAS partners (30.2%-48.5%, aOR: 2.22). Reporting recent STI testing was greater in 2021 (37.5%-42.6%, aOR: 1.34) but not recent HIV testing, and there was no significant change over time in unmet STI (39.2% vs 43.7%) and HIV (32.9% vs 39.0%) testing need. DISCUSSION: Comparable community surveys suggest that UK resident GBMSM may have engaged in more sexual risk behaviours in late 2021 than pre-pandemic. While there was no evidence of reduced STI/HIV service access during this time, there remained considerable unmet STI/HIV testing need.

Difficulty accessing condoms because of the COVID-19 pandemic reported by gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in the UK: findings from a large, cross-sectional, online survey.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 restrictions severely reduced face-to-face sexual health services, an important access point for condoms. We examine whether gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in the UK had difficulty accessing condoms during the first year of the pandemic, and if so, which groups were most affected. METHODS: Questions about difficulty accessing condoms were asked as part of a short, online cross-sectional survey of GBMSM undertaken November/December 2021, recruited via social media and Grindr. Eligible participants were UK-resident GBMSM (cis/trans/gender-diverse person assigned male at birth [AMAB]), aged ≥16 years who were sexually active (reported sex with men in the last year). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine if and how reporting this outcome varied by key sociodemographic, health and behavioural factors independent of the potential confounding effect of numbers of new male sex partners. RESULTS: Of all participants (N = 1039), 7.4% (n = 77) reported difficulty accessing condoms due to the pandemic. This was higher among younger GBMSM (aged 16-29 years vs. ≥45; 12.8% vs. 4.9%; aOR: 2.78); trans/gender-diverse AMAB participants (vs. cis gender males; 24.4% vs. 6.6%; aOR = 4.86); bisexually-identifying participants (vs. gay-identifying; 11.1% vs. 6.5%; aOR = 1.78); and those without degree level education (vs. having a degree; 9.8% vs. 5.6%; aOR = 2.01). CONCLUSIONS: A minority of sexually active GBMSM reported difficulty accessing condoms because of the pandemic, however, this was more common amongst those who already experience a disproportionate burden of poor sexual health. Interventions are needed to address these inequalities in accessing this important primary STI/HIV prevention measure.

Assessing the impact of online postal self-sampling for sexually transmitted infections on health inequalities, access to care and clinical outcomes in the UK: protocol for ASSIST, a realist evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: The past decade has seen a rapid increase in the volume and proportion of testing for sexually transmitted infections that are accessed via online postal self-sampling services in the UK. ASSIST (Assessing the impact of online postal self-sampling for sexually transmitted infections on health inequalities, access to care and clinical outcomes in the UK) aims to assess the impact of these services on health inequalities, access to care, and clinical and economic outcomes, and to identify the factors that influence the implementation and sustainability of these services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ASSIST is a mixed-methods, realist evaluated, national study with an in-depth focus of three case study areas (Birmingham, London and Sheffield). An impact evaluation, economic evaluation and implementation evaluation will be conducted. Findings from these evaluations will be analysed together to develop programme theories that explain the outcomes. Data collection includes quantitative data (using national, clinic based and online datasets); qualitative interviews with service users, healthcare professionals and key stakeholders; contextual observations and documentary analysis. STATA 17 and NVivo will be used to conduct the quantitative and qualitative analysis, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/SC/0223). All quantitative data accessed and collected will be anonymous. Participants involved with qualitative interviews will be asked for informed consent, and data collected will be anonymised.Our dissemination strategy has been developed to access and engage key audiences in a timely manner and findings will be disseminated via the study website, social media, in peer-reviewed scientific journals, at research conferences, local meetings and seminars and at a concluding dissemination and networking event for stakeholders.

Accelerated partner therapy contact tracing for people with chlamydia (LUSTRUM): a crossover cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Accelerated partner therapy has shown promise in improving contact tracing. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of accelerated partner therapy in addition to usual contact tracing compared with usual practice alone in heterosexual people with chlamydia, using a biological primary outcome measure. METHODS: We did a crossover cluster-randomised controlled trial in 17 sexual health clinics (clusters) across England and Scotland. Participants were heterosexual people aged 16 years or older with a positive Chlamydia trachomatis test result, or a clinical diagnosis of conditions for which presumptive chlamydia treatment and contact tracing are initially provided, and their sexual partners. We allocated phase order for clinics through random permutation within strata. In the control phase, participants received usual care (health-care professional advised the index patient to tell their sexual partner[s] to attend clinic for sexually transmitted infection screening and treatment). In the intervention phase, participants received usual care plus an offer of accelerated partner therapy (health-care professional assessed sexual partner[s] by telephone, then sent or gave the index patient antibiotics and sexually transmitted infection self-sampling kits for their sexual partner[s]). Each phase lasted 6 months, with a 2-week washout at crossover. The primary outcome was the proportion of index patients with a positive C trachomatis test result at 12-24 weeks after contact tracing consultation. Secondary outcomes included proportions and types of sexual partners treated. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat, fitting random effects logistic regression models. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 15996256. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2018, and Nov 17, 2019, 1536 patients were enrolled in the intervention phase and 1724 were enrolled in the control phase. All clinics completed both phases. In total, 4807 sexual partners were reported, of whom 1636 (34%) were steady established partners. Overall, 293 (19%) of 1536 index patients chose accelerated partner therapy for a total of 305 partners, of whom 248 (81%) accepted. 666 (43%) of 1536 index patients in the intervention phase and 800 (46%) of 1724 in the control phase were tested for C trachomatis at 12-24 weeks after contact tracing consultation; 31 (4·7%) in the intervention phase and 53 (6·6%) in the control phase had a positive C trachomatis test result (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·41 to 1·04]; p=0·071; marginal absolute difference -2·2% [95% CI -4·7 to 0·3]). Among index patients with treatment status recorded, 775 (88·0%) of 881 patients in the intervention phase and 760 (84·6%) of 898 in the control phase had at least one treated sexual partner at 2-4 weeks after contact tracing consultation (adjusted OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·96 to 1·68]; p=0·10; marginal absolute difference 2·7% [95% CI -0·5 to 6·0]). No clinically significant harms were reported. INTERPRETATION: Although the evidence that the intervention reduces repeat infection was not conclusive, the trial results suggest that accelerated partner therapy can be safely offered as a contact tracing option and is also likely to be cost saving. Future research should find ways to increase uptake of accelerated partner therapy and develop alternative interventions for one-off sexual partners. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Changes in STI and HIV testing and testing need among men who have sex with men during the UK's COVID-19 pandemic response.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the impact of COVID-19-related restrictions on sexual behaviours, STI and HIV testing and testing need among men who have sex with men (MSM) in the UK. METHODS: We used social media and dating applications to recruit to three cross-sectional surveys (S1-S3) during the UK's pandemic response (S1: 23 June-14 July 2020; S2: 23 November-12 December 2020; S3: 23 March-14 April 2021). Surveys included lookback periods of around 3-4 months (P1-P3, respectively). Eligible participants were UK resident men (cisgender/transgender) and gender-diverse people assigned male at birth (low numbers of trans and gender-diverse participants meant restricting these analyses to cisgender men), aged ≥16 years who reported sex with men (cisgender/transgender) in the last year (S1: N=1950; S2: N=1463; S3: N=1487). Outcomes were: recent STI/HIV testing and unmet testing need (new male and/or multiple condomless anal sex partners without a recent STI/HIV test). Crude and adjusted associations with each outcome were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Participants' sociodemographic characteristics were similar across surveys. The proportion reporting a recent STI and/or HIV test increased between P1 and P2 (25.0% to 37.2% (p<0.001) and 29.7% to 39.4% (p<0.001), respectively), then stabilised in P3 (40.5% reporting HIV testing). Unmet STI testing need increased across P1 and P2 (26.0% to 32.4%; p<0.001), but trends differed between groups, for example, unmet STI testing need was higher in bisexually-identifying (vs gay-identifying) MSM across periods (adjusted OR (aOR): P1=1.64; P2=1.42), but declined in HIV-positive (vs HIV-negative/unknown) MSM (aOR: P1=2.06; P2=0.68). Unmet HIV testing need increased across P1 and P2 (22.9% to 31.0%; p<0.001) and declined in P3 (25.1%; p=0.001). During P3, MSM reporting a low life-satisfaction level (vs medium-very high) had greater unmet need (aOR: 1.44), while from P2 onwards HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis users (vs non-users) had lower unmet need (aOR: P2=0.32; P3=0.50). CONCLUSION: Considerable unmet STI/HIV testing need occurred among MSM during COVID-19-related restrictions, especially in bisexually-identifying men and those reporting low life satisfaction. Improving access to STI/HIV testing in MSM is essential to prevent inequalities being exacerbated.

'Stay at home ': exploring the impact of the COVID-19 public health response on sexual behaviour and health service use among men who have sex with men: findings from a large online survey in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: The first UK national lockdown began on 23 March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and led to reduced STI/HIV service provision in the UK. We investigated sexual behaviour, use and need for sexual healthcare during the pandemic. METHODS: Participants (N=2018), including men (cis/transgender), transwomen and gender-diverse people reporting sex with another man (cis/transgender) or non-binary person assigned male at birth, completed an online cross-sectional survey (23 June 2020-14 July 2020), in response to adverts on social media and dating apps.Sexual behaviour, service use and unmet need for STI testing (any new male and/or multiple condomless anal sex (CAS) partners without STI testing) in the 3 months since lockdown began were examined and compared using multivariable analyses with an equivalent 3-month period in a 2017 survey (N=1918), conducted by the same research team. RESULTS: Since lockdown began, 36.7% of participants reported one or more new partners, 17.3% reported CAS with multiple partners, 29.7% HIV testing (among 1815 of unknown/negative status), 24.9% STI testing and 15.4% using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).Since lockdown began, 25.3% of participants had unmet need for STI testing. This was more likely among Asian versus white participants (adjusted OR (aOR)=1.76, (1.14 to 2.72), p=0.01); for participants living in Scotland (aOR=2.02, (1.40 to 2.91), p<0.001) or Northern Ireland (aOR=1.93, (1.02-3.63), p=0.04) versus England; and for those living with HIV (aOR=1.83, (1.32 to 2.53), p<0.001).Compared to 2017, the equivalent 2020 subsample were less likely to report new male partners (46.8% vs 71.1%, p<0.001), multiple CAS partners (20.3% vs 30.8%, p<0.001) and have unmet need for STI testing (32.8% vs 42.5%, p<0.001) in the past 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: We found potential for ongoing STI/HIV transmission among men who have sex with men during the initial UK lockdown, despite reduced sexual activity, and inequalities in service access. These findings will support public health planning to mitigate health risks during and after the COVID-19 response.

Accelerated partner therapy (APT) partner notification for people with Chlamydia trachomatis: protocol for the Limiting Undetected Sexually Transmitted infections to RedUce Morbidity (LUSTRUM) APT cross-over cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Partner notification (PN) is a process aiming to identify, test and treat the sex partners of people (index patients) with sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Accelerated partner therapy (APT) is a PN method whereby healthcare professionals assess sex partners, by telephone consultation, before giving the index patient antibiotics and STI self-sampling kits to deliver to their sex partner(s). The Limiting Undetected Sexually Transmitted infections to RedUce Morbidity programme aims to determine the effectiveness of APT in heterosexual women and men with chlamydia and determine whether APT could affect Chlamydia trachomatis transmission at population level. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a cross-over cluster randomised controlled trial of APT, offered as an additional PN method, compared with standard PN. The trial is accompanied by an economic evaluation, transmission dynamic modelling and a qualitative process evaluation involving patients, partners and healthcare professionals. Clusters are 17 sexual health clinics in areas of England and Scotland with contrasting patient demographics. We will recruit 5440 heterosexual women and men with chlamydia, aged ≥16 years.The primary outcome is the proportion of index patients testing positive for C. trachomatis 12-16 weeks after the PN consultation. Secondary outcomes include: proportion of sex partners treated; cost effectiveness; model-predicted chlamydia prevalence; experiences of APT.The primary outcome analysis will be by intention-to-treat, fitting random effects logistic regression models that account for clustering of index patients within clinics and trial periods. The transmission dynamic model will be used to predict change in chlamydia prevalence following APT. The economic evaluation will use mathematical modelling outputs, taking a health service perspective. Qualitative data will be analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis and framework analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol received ethical approval from London-Chelsea Research Ethics Committee (18/LO/0773). Findings will be published with open access licences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15996256.

"They made me feel comfortable": a comparison of methods to measure patient experience in a sexual health clinic.

BACKGROUND: High quality sexual health services are needed to improve both individual and public health outcomes. This study set out to explore what is important to patients who visit a sexual health clinic, and examine their understanding of standard survey questions, in order to inform the collection and interpretation of patient experience data that are used to improve services. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study. In the first part of the interview, we used "discovery interviews" to explore patients' experiences of attending a central London walk-in sexual health clinic. In the second part, we asked patients how they would respond to eight standard patient experience survey questions and to provide an explanation for each of their responses. We conducted a thematic analysis of the interview data. RESULTS: We interviewed seventeen participants (nine women, eight men) of different ethnicities and backgrounds. All interviewees were positive about their experience. They described how staff had made them feel "comfortable", and talked about how staff spent time, listened and did not rush them, despite being a very busy clinic. In response to the survey questions, fourteen patients rated their as care excellent or very good overall. However, survey questions were interpreted in different ways and were not always easily understood. CONCLUSIONS: The open-ended "discovery interviews" provided new insights into aspects of care that were most valued or could improve. Standard patient experience questions provide a rating but little elucidation of the experiences that lie behind patients' responses. They do not always measure aspects of care valued by patients or identify areas for improvement. They are not uniformly understood and necessarily collapse a wide range of experiences and views into categories that may seem inappropriate. Qualitative methods have a key role in measuring patient experience and involving patients in service improvement.