Search results

IntroductionThe incidence of anal cancer is significantly higher in men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV when compared to the general population. We aimed to assess their awareness, knowledge and perceived level of personal risk for anal cancer to help inform educational strategies targeting this group.MethodsA cross‐sectional study of 327 HIV positive MSM in Melbourne, Australia, attending clinical settings (a sexual health centre, tertiary hospital HIV outpatients and high HIV caseload general practices) completed a written questionnaire in 2013/14. Poor knowledge was defined as those who had never heard of anal cancer, or scored 5 or less out of 10 in knowledge questions amongst those who reported ever hearing about anal cancer. Underestimation of risk was defined as considering themselves as having the same or lower risk for anal cancer compared to the general population.ResultsOf 72% (95% confidence interval (CI): 67–77) who had heard of anal cancer, 47% (95% CI: 41–53) could not identify any risk factors for anal cancer. Of total men surveyed, 51% (95% CI: 46–57) underestimated their risk for anal cancer. Multivariate analysis showed that men who underestimated their risk were older (OR 1.04 (per year increase in age), 95% CI: 1.01–1.07), had poor anal cancer knowledge (OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.21–3.51), and more likely to have ever had an anal examination (OR 2.41, 95% CI: 1.18–4.93). They were less likely to consult a physician if they had an anal abnormality (OR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31–0.96), to have had receptive anal sex (OR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02–0.59) or speak English at home (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.09–0.90).ConclusionsThis survey of MSM living with HIV demonstrated limited awareness, knowledge level and estimation of risk for anal cancer. Further educational and public health initiatives are urgently needed to improve knowledge and understanding of anal cancer risk in MSM living with HIV.

AbstractIntroductionMen who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV have a high risk of anal cancer, which is often detected at late stages, when morbidity and mortality are high. The objective of this study was to describe the feasibility and challenges to incorporating regular digital anorectal examination (DARE) into routine HIV care for MSM living with HIV, from the perspective of patients, physicians and the health service.MethodsIn 2014, we recruited 327 MSM living with HIV, aged 35 and above from one major sexual health centre (n = 187), two high HIV caseload general practices (n = 118) and one tertiary hospital (n = 22) in Melbourne, Australia. Men were followed up for two years and DARE was recommended at baseline, year 1 and year 2. Data were collected regarding patient and physician experience, and health service use. An ordered logit model was used to assess the relationship between sociodemographic factors and the number of DAREs performed.ResultsMean age of men was 51 (SD ± 9) years, 69% were Australian born, 32% current smokers, and mean CD4 was 630 (SD ± 265) cells per mm3, with no significant differences between clinical sites. Overall, 232 (71%) men received all three DAREs, 71 (22%) received two DAREs, and 24 (7%) had one DARE. Adverse outcomes were rarely reported: anal pain (1.2% of total DAREs), bleeding (0.8%) and not feeling in control of their body during the examination (1.6%). Of 862 DAREs performed, 33 (3.8%) examinations resulted in a referral to a colorectal surgeon. One Stage 1 anal cancer was detected.ConclusionIncorporation of an early anal cancer detection programme into routine HIV clinical care for MSM living with HIV showed high patient acceptability, uncommon adverse outcomes and specialist referral patterns similar to other cancer screening programmes.

This comprehensive text analyzes the foreign policies of eighteen countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. First assessing the state of the discipline, the introduction develops a common framework that compares the relevant explanatory weight of foreign policy determinants at the individual, state, and international level for each country. Case studies include the major regional powers such as Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina, as well as less-studied players such as the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Uruguay. With its focused analytical questions and rich empirical description, this book a