Observational analysis reveals trends in online and in-person sex-seeking venues used by MSM, suggesting implications for recruitment and HIV interventions.
Understanding sex-seeking venues used by men who have sex with men (MSM) may facilitate better study recruitment. We examined online and in-person sex-seeking venues among Berlin MSM. We enrolled participants with and without HIV receiving care in Berlin, Germany between 2018 and 2023. Participants completed a socio-behavioral questionnaire every six months for up to 24 months. Kruskal-Wallis tests and Joinpoint regression models were fitted to examine trends in use of sex-seeking venues. Robust Poisson regression models with generalized estimating equations were fitted to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between characteristics and online sex-seeking. Of 285 visits among 126 MSM, sex-seeking via online venues was reported at 225 (78.9%) visits and via in-person venues at 185 (64.9%) visits. Grindr (66.0%) and Gayromeo (58.9%) were the most common online venues; clubs (42.9%) and parties (33.7%) were the most common in-person venues. Online sex-seeking was associated with sex under the influence of drugs (aPR [95% CI]; 1.26 [1.13, 1.41]), increasing numbers of sex partners (6-24: 1.59 [1.36, 1.86]; ≥25: 1.63 [1.38, 1.93]; compared to 1-5 partners), inconsistent condom use during receptive anal sex (2.15 [1.26, 3.65]), and being in a non-committed (4.94 [2.37, 10.29]) or non-monogamous (4.62 [2.29, 9.33]) relationship. Our findings suggest that venues that had been popular a few years ago may not be effective channels for study recruitment. Commonly used sex-seeking apps may be useful venues for studies to recruit participants to test HIV prevention, diagnosis, and treatment interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vyas et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: