Traits associated with individuals. Traits regarding the individuals, stratified by HIV status, are shown in dining dining Table 1.

Characteristics for the individuals, stratified by HIV status, are shown in dining dining Table 1. Almost all of men (60.8 percent) considered by themselves HIV-negative, 153 males (26.5 percent) HIV-positive, and 73 (12.7 per cent) would not understand their HIV status at time of enrolment. The entire median age ended up being 37 (IQR 30–43) years. HIV-positive guys had been considerably older and reported more lovers than HIV-negative or HIV-unaware males (P Table 1 Characteristics of 577 males who’ve intercourse with men, stratified by self-perceived HIV status, Amsterdam, 2008-9

Online and offline partner and partnership traits

Traits of on the internet and offline lovers and partnerships are shown in dining Table 2. The median age regarding the lovers ended up being 34 years (IQR 28–40). In comparison to offline lovers, more partners that are online Dutch (61.3 percent vs. 54.0 percent; P Table 2 traits of 1781 intimate partners and partnerships of 577 males who possess sex with males, by way of the way the participant established the partnership, Amsterdam, 2008-9

In Additional file 1: Table S1 traits of lovers and partnerships stratified by HIV status of individuals are shown. UAI had been alot more typical in partnerships of HIV-positive guys (49 per cent) compared to partnerships of HIV-negative guys (13 per cent) or men that are HIV-unaware28 per cent) (P dining Table 3 regularity of UAI by partner acquisition (online or offline) by participant’s and partner’s HIV status

Association between online/offline dating and UAI

In univariate analysis, UAI had been a lot more prone to occur in on line than in offline partnerships (OR = 1.36 95 percent CI 1.03–1.81) (Table 4). The self-perceived HIV status for the participant had been highly connected with UAI (OR = 11.70 95 per cent CI 7.40–18.45). The consequence of dating location on UAI differed by HIV status, since can be seen best in Table 5. Dining Table 5 socialsex login shows the relationship of internet dating using three different guide groups, one for every HIV status. Among HIV-positive guys, UAI had been more widespread in online in comparison to offline partnerships (OR = 1.61 95 percent CI 1.03–2.50). No relationship had been obvious between UAI and online partnerships (OR = 1.07 95 per cent CI 0.71–1.62) among HIV-negative males. Among HIV-unaware men, UAI ended up being more prevalent in online in comparison to offline partnerships, though maybe perhaps not statistically significant (OR = 1.65 95 percent CI 0.79–3.44).

In the first multivariate model (Tables 4 and 5), including only demographic and sexual behavior factors associated with the participant, the associations between online dating and UAI were nearly the same as those within the univariate model (aOR = 1.65 95 percent CI 1.05–2.57 for HIV-positive guys, and aOR = 1.04 95 percent CI 0.69–1.59 for HIV-negative guys, and aOR = 1.85 95 % CI 0.86–3.98 for HIV-unaware males) ( dining Table 5).

In multivariate model 2 (Tables 4 and 5), variables in regards to the partnership had been added (life style concordance, ethnic concordance, and HIV concordance). The aftereffect of fulfilling location on UAI had been smaller and no further significant (aOR = 1.43 95 per cent CI 0.89–2.31 among HIV-positive males dining dining Table 5).

In multivariate model 3 (Tables 4 and 5), also including variables concerning behaviour that is sexual the partnership (sex-related numerous medication usage, intercourse regularity and partner kind), the separate effectation of internet dating location on UAI became significantly more powerful (though maybe perhaps maybe not significant) for the HIV-positive males (aOR = 1.62 95 percent CI; 0.96–2.72), but stayed comparable for HIV-negative guys (aOR = 0.94 95 percent CI 0.59–1.48). The result of online dating sites on UAI became more powerful (and significant) for HIV-unaware guys (aOR = 2.55 95 per cent CI 1.11–5.86) ( Table 5).

Perceived concordance of HIV status had been connected with UAI in models 2 and 3 (Table 4). In model 3, HIV discordance (aOR = 0.15 95 % CI 0.08–0.30) or HIV that is unknown (aOR = 0.25 95 per cent CI 0.16–0.40) had been adversely related to UAI (Table 4).

We investigated the result of self-perceived HIV concordance on UAI individually for HIV-positive and HIV-negative guys. The end result of self-perceived HIV concordance on UAI ended up being very good in HIV-positive males (aOR 24.09 95 percent CI 9.17–63.31), however in HIV-negative guys (aOR 0.42 95 percent CI 0.14–1.27).

How many intercourse lovers into the preceding six months for the index ended up being also connected with UAI (OR = 6.79 95 percent CI 2.86–16.13 for anyone with 50 or even more current intercourse lovers when compared with individuals with less than 5 present intercourse lovers). UAI ended up being much more likely if more acts that are sex took place the partnership (OR = 16.29 95 percent CI 7.07–37.52 for 10 intercourse functions inside the partnership when compared with only 1 intercourse work). Other facets notably related to UAI had been team intercourse inside the partnership, and sex-related multiple drug usage within partnership.

I think I may be HIV positive” to the category Unknown, rather than to the category HIV-positive), the results were unchanged when we repeated the analyses using a different categorization of self-perceived HIV status (assigning those who indicated. A sensitiveness analysis, including only information of partnerships for which only 1 intercourse act had happened, revealed comparable outcomes regarding the association between online dating sites and UAI (data perhaps maybe not shown).


In this big research among MSM attending the STI clinic in Amsterdam, we discovered no evidence that online dating sites ended up being independently related to a greater chance of UAI than offline dating. This not enough assocation had been clear (aOR = 0.94 95 per cent CI 0.59–1.48) for HIV-negative males; among HIV-positive guys there is a non-significant relationship between online dating sites and UAI (aOR = 1.62 95 per cent CI 0.96–2.72). Just among guys whom suggested these were maybe maybe not alert to their HIV status (a group that is small this research), UAI had been more prevalent with online than offline lovers.

Among HIV-positive guys, in univariate analysis UAI was reported much more frequently with online lovers than with offline lovers. Whenever adjusting for partner traits, the consequence of online/offline dating on UAI among HIV-positive MSM became significantly smaller and became non-significant; this implies that variations in partnership facets between on line and offline partnerships are responsible for the increased UAI in online founded partnerships. This may be because of an effect that is mediating of information about lovers, (including sensed HIV status) on UAI, or even other factors. No effect of online dating on UAI was observed, either in univariate or in any of the multivariate models among HIV-negative men. Among HIV-unaware males, internet dating ended up being connected with UAI but just significant whenever incorporating partner and partnership factors to your model.

The information also declare that concordance in HIV status can be a essential predictor for UAI in most groups (HIV- positive, -negative, and –unaware guys). Concordance in HIV status may be much more very important to HIV-positive guys compared to other people, and maybe Web dating really helps to evaluate each other’s HIV status more effortlessly.

A vital energy with this research ended up being it explored the connection between online dating and UAI among MSM that has present intimate experience of both online and offline casual lovers. This avoided bias due to possible differences when considering males just dating on the internet and people just dating offline, a weakness of a few past studies. By recruiting individuals during the biggest STI outpatient center in holland we could add a large number of MSM, and prevent prospective variations in men sampled through Web or face-to-face interviewing, weaknesses in certain previous studies 3, 11.