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