Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study finds higher community HIV testing in migrant GBMSM with longer residency and no test history, indicating benefits of peer services.
Background Overseas-born gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) experience higher HIV notification rates compared with Australian-born GBMSM. This disparity is perpetuated by delayed access to HIV testing and biomedical prevention driven by a range of factors including Medicare eligibility, language and cultural barriers, and unfamiliarity with the health system. Community-based services offer an alternative pathway to HIV testing that may better serve migrant GBMSM facing challenges accessing mainstream healthcare settings. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study comparing settings of first HIV test within our service, either peer-led community-based testing or traditional clinic-based testing for overseas-born GBMSM who arrived in Australia between January 2022 and January 2024. Participants were grouped by time of arrival to first HIV test (either less than 6 months or more than 6 months). Comparative analysis and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify characteristics associated with attendance at the community-based setting. Results A total of 1204 GBMSM were included with 424 (35.2%) attending community-based setting for their first HIV test after arrival. Those who attended community-based testing were more likely to have arrived in Australia more than 6 months ago (66.8% vs 26.9%) and never previously tested for HIV (37.5% vs 17.2%). These factors were also associated with higher likelihood of community-based testing in the multivariable model (aOR 5.27, 95% CI 3.98–6.97 and aOR 2.13, 95% CI 1.57–2.91 respectively). Conclusion Community-based, peer-led HIV testing services play an important role in engaging overseas-born GBMSM who may be under-served by traditional clinic-based models, particularly those with longer residence in Australia and no prior HIV testing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Houghton et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: