Substance Use and Sexual Risk Mediated by Social Support Among Black Men

(1) Background: Condomless anal sex and substance use are associated with STI risk among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM). Our first study objective was to describe event-level sexual risk and substance use trends among gbMSM. Our second study objective was to describe substances associated with event-level sexual risk. (2) Methods: Data come from the Momentum Health Study in Vancouver, British Columbia and participants were recruited from 2012–2015, with follow-up until 2018. Stratified by self-reported HIV status, we used generalized estimating equations to assess trends of sexual event-level substance use and assessed interactions between substance use and time period on event-level higher risk sex defined as condomless anal sex with an HIV serodifferent or unknown status partner. (3) Results: Event-level higher risk anal sex increased across the study period among HIV-negative/unknown (baseline prevalence: 13% vs. study end prevalence: 29%) and HIV-positive gbMSM (baseline prevalence: 16% vs. study end prevalence: 38%). Among HIV-negative/unknown gbMSM, event-level erectile drug use increased, while alcohol use decreased over the study period. Overall, interactions between substance use and time on higher risk anal sex were not statistically significant, regardless of serostatus. However, we found a number of time-specific significant interactions for erectile drugs, poppers, Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), crystal methamphetamine and ecstasy/MDMA use among HIV-negative/unknown gbMSM. (4) Conclusion: Significant differences in substance use trends and associated risks exist and are varied among gbMSM by serostatus. These findings provide a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of event-level substance use on sexual risk through longitudinal follow-up of nearly six years.

Download Full-text

Perceived family cohesion, social support, and quality of life in patients undergoing treatment for substance use disorders compared with patients with mental and physical disorders

Addiction Science & Clinical Practice ◽

10.1186/s13722-021-00252-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Bente Birkeland ◽

Bente Weimand ◽

Torleif Ruud ◽

Darryl Maybery ◽

John-Kåre Vederhus

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Social Support ◽

Substance Use ◽

Substance Use Disorders ◽

Family Cohesion ◽

Service Providers ◽

Cancer Data ◽

Physical Disorders ◽

Patient Groups

Abstract Purpose Support from family and other social network elements can be important in helping patients to cope with practical and emotional consequences of diseases. The aim of the study was to examine perception of family and social support and quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing treatment for substance use disorders (SUDs). We compared them with patients in treatment for mental disorders (MDs) and physical disorders (PDs). Methods We used data from a national multicenter study that recruited patients (N = 518) from three treatment domains; SUD treatment units, MD treatment units, and PD treatment units (severe neurological conditions or cancer). Data on family cohesion, social support, and QoL were compared across patient groups. In addition, data on health variables was collected. We used a multiple linear regression procedure to examine how health and support variables were associated with QoL. Results Family cohesion and social support in the SUD and MD groups were rated at similarly low levels, substantially lower than in the PD group. The SUD group exhibited a somewhat lower QoL than did the PD group, but their QoL was still in the near-to-normal range. In contrast, the MD group had markedly low QoL. When examining factors associated with QoL, we found that greater family cohesion and social support were positively associated with QoL. Mental distress was the strongest factor, and was negatively associated with QoL (beta − 0.15, 95% CI = − 0.17/− 0.14, p < 0.001). Conclusion Service providers need to be aware of the weaker networks and less regulatory family and/or social support available to patients with SUDs. Providers should focus consistently on the social networks of patients and include patients’ families in treatment processes.

Download Full-text