首都医科大学学报 ›› 2016, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (2): 233-237.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-7795.2016.02.024

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

北京市东城区两种男男性行为人群干预模式的干预效果评价

田飞1, 王媛媛1, 马韻芳1, 汪静1, 孔令坤2   

  1. 1. 北京市东城区疾病预防控制中心性病艾滋病防治科, 北京 100050;
    2. 无国界爱心(北京)文化传播有限公司, 北京 100050
  • 收稿日期:2016-01-08 出版日期:2016-04-21 发布日期:2016-04-14

Investigation of two intervention models to men who have sex with men in Dongcheng District, Beijing

Tian Fei1, Wang Yuanyuan1, Ma Yunfang1, Wang Jing1, Kong Lingkun2   

  1. 1. Department of Sexually Transmitted Disease and AIDS Prevention, Beijing Dongcheng District Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100050, China;
    2. Love without Bound(Beijing) Cultural Transmission Limited Company, Beijing 100050, China
  • Received:2016-01-08 Online:2016-04-21 Published:2016-04-14

摘要: 目的 评价社区小组驻点式干预模式和联合干预模式对男男性行为人群的干预效果。方法 2013年1月至2014年1月,在北京市东城区选取一家男男性行为者(men who have sex with men,MSM)聚集场所(A场所),实施为期1年的社区小组驻点式干预,同期另选一家MSM聚集场所(B场所),实施为期1年的联合干预。分别对比两种模式干预前、后调查者的艾滋病知识知晓率、高危行为、接受艾滋病服务和干预意愿、人类免疫缺陷病毒(human immunodeficiency virus, HIV)抗体检测及HIV感染者发现情况,评价干预效果。采用便利抽样原则,两种干预模式在干预前后均调查了100名男男性行为者。结果 实施1年的社区小组(community based organization,CBO)驻点式干预后,A场所的知识知晓率由(85.25±15.63)%上升到(95.50±6.77)%,最近一次性行为安全套使用比例由74%上升到95%,每次性行为均使用安全套的比例由52%上升到79%,最近半年固定性伴数由(2.88±0.68)个减少至(1.54±0.67)个,愿意接受的安全套宣传和发放的比例由77%提升到95%,愿意接受艾滋病咨询与检测的比例由66%提升到92%。实施1年的联合干预后,B场所的知识知晓率由(73.63±15.48)%上升到(91.38±13.73)%,最近一次性行为安全套使用比例由46%上升到73%,每次性行为均使用安全套的比例由19%上升到52%,最近半年固定性伴数由(2.33±0.87)个减少至(1.78±0.80)个,愿意接受的安全套宣传和发放的比例由29%提升到92%,愿意接受艾滋病咨询与检测的比例由21%提升到83%。上述指标干预前后的差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。A场所调查对象愿意接受同伴教育的比例由33%提升到91%,干预前后的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),而B场所此项指标的变化没有统计学意义。A场所调查对象最近1年HIV抗体检测率为86%,B场所为36%。两个场所最近1年HIV抗体检测率差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。A场所最近1年HIV感染者检出率4.65%,B场所为2.78%,两个场所HIV感染者检出率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论CBO驻点式干预模式和联合干预模式都是有效的干预模式,但驻点式干预模式在提高同伴教育认可度、HIV感染者发现等方面要优于联合干预模式,值得在有条件的地区推广。

关键词: 男男性行为人群, 社区小组, 人类免疫缺陷病毒, 干预性研究, 高危性行为

Abstract: Objective To evaluate the effects of combination intervention model and stationary point intervention model, which conducted by community based organization (CBO) to the men who have sex with men(MSM).Methods To implement one-year stationary point intervention model in a MSM venue(A venue) during Jan.2013 and Jan.2014. Meanwhile, another similar MSM venue(B venue) was chosen, which combination intervention model was implemented.Investigations were conducted among subjects of questions related to acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) prevention knowledge, behavior of AIDS prevention before and after intervention and will of accepting AIDS prevention. Meanwhile, the rate of HIV antibody testing and the ability of finding HIV infected person of two models were compared. 100 MSM were investigated by convenience sampling before and after two kinds of interventions. Results After one-year CBO stationary point intervention, in A venue, the awareness rate of knowledge about AIDS prevention of MSM increased from (85.25±15.63)% to (95.50±6.77)%, the proportion of condom-use with male at last intercourse increased from 74% to 95%, the proportion of condom-use with male at each intercourse increased from 52% to 79%, the numbers of fixed sexual partner in recent half year decreased from (2.88±0.08)to(1.54±0.67), Condom-accepting rate increase from 77% to 95%, AIDS consult and test-accepting rate increase from 66% to 92%. After one-year combination intervention, in B venue, the awareness rate of knowledge about AIDS prevention of MSM increased from (73.63±15.48)% to (91.38±13.73)%, the proportion of condom-use with male at last intercourse increased from 46% to 73%, the proportion of condom-use with male at each intercourse increased from 19% to 52%, the numbers of fixed sexual partner in recent half year decreased from (2.33±0.87) to (1.78±0.80). Condom-accepting rate increased from 29% to 92%, AIDS consult and test-accepting rate increased from 33% to 91%. All the above indexes show significant statistic difference before and after the intervention. In A venue, peer education-accepting rate increased from 33% to 91%, but the index shows no significant statistic difference in B venue. The rate of HIV antibody testing of MSM was 86% in A venue, the rate of HIV antibody testing of MSM was 36% in B venue, the index show significant statistic difference between A venue and B venue. The rate of finding HIV infected person was 4.65% in A venue, the rate of finding HIV infected person was 2.78% in B venue, the index show no significant statistic difference between A venue and B venue Conclusion Both CBO stationary point intervention model and combination intervention model were effective intervention models. But CBO stationary point intervention model was more effective in peer education-accepting rate and HIV infected person finding than combination intervention model. It worth be used in the fitted site.

Key words: men who have sex with men, community based organization, human immunodeficiency virus, intervention studies, high risk sexual behavior

中图分类号: