Men who have sex with men: An approach to social network analysis.
Pilar Marqués-Sánchez, David Bermejo-Martínez, Enedina Quiroga Sánchez and 3 others
PMID 36217564WHAT IT FOUND
In 32 MSM in Madrid, larger networks and higher income linked to more group sex.
Unprotected anal sex was strongly tied to close partners, but chemsex and other risks were not. Small sample limits generalizability.
Key findings
01Participants who engaged in unprotected anal sex had significantly stronger ties to their partners than those who did not.
02Higher monthly income was associated with greater participation in group sex sessions.
03There was no statistically significant difference in condom use based on socioeconomic characteristics.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was very small (32 participants), limiting statistical power and generalizability. Recruitment via dating apps with geolocation filters introduces selection bias, potentially excluding MSM who do not use these specific apps or are not geolocated in the study area. The cross-sectional design cannot establish causality between network characteristics and sexual risk behaviors. Self-reported data on sensitive behaviors (drug use, condomless sex) may be subject to social desirability bias.
Declared interests
The authors declare the absence of current or potential conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that strong social ties protect against all sexual risks; while bond strength was linked to unprotected anal sex, it was not associated with chemsex or group sex participation. The small sample size means these specific correlations should not be treated as established causal mechanisms.