What is the empirical basis for converting banded ordinal data on numbers of sex partners among MSM into a continuous scale level variable? A secondary analysis of 13 surveys across 17 countries.


Journal

BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 03 2022
Historique:
received: 28 06 2021
accepted: 05 10 2021
entrez: 7 3 2022
pubmed: 8 3 2022
medline: 22 3 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To provide empirically based guidance for substituting partner number categories in large MSM surveys with mean numbers of sexual and condomless anal intercourse (CAI) partners in a secondary analysis of survey data. We collated data on numbers of sexual and CAI partners reported in a continuous scale (write-in number) in thirteen MSM surveys on sexual health and behaviour across 17 countries. Pooled descriptive statistics for the number of sexual and CAI partners during the last twelve (N = 55,180) and 6 months (N = 31,759) were calculated for two sets of categories commonly used in reporting numbers of sexual partners in sexual behaviour surveys. The pooled mean number of partners in the previous 12 months for the total sample was 15.8 partners (SD = 36.6), while the median number of partners was 5 (IQR = 2-15). Means for number of partners in the previous 12 months for the first set of categories were: 16.4 for 11-20 partners (SD = 3.3); 27.8 for 21-30 (SD = 2.8); 38.6 for 31-40 (SD = 2.4); 49.6 for 41-50 (SD = 1.5); and 128.2 for 'more than 50' (SD = 98.1). Alternative upper cut-offs: 43.4 for 'more than 10' (SD = 57.7); 65.3 for 'more than 20' (SD = 70.3). Self-reported partner numbers for both time frames consistently exceeded 200 or 300. While there was substantial variation of overall means across surveys, the means for all chosen categories were very similar. Partner numbers above nine mainly clustered at multiples of tens, regardless of the selected time frame. The overall means for CAI partners were lower than those for sexual partners; however, such difference was completely absent from all categories beyond ten sexual and CAI partners. Clustering of reported partner numbers confirm common MSM sexual behaviour surveys' questionnaire piloting feedback indicating that responses to numbers of sexual partners beyond 10 are best guesses rather than precise counts, but large partner numbers above typical upper cut-offs are common.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
To provide empirically based guidance for substituting partner number categories in large MSM surveys with mean numbers of sexual and condomless anal intercourse (CAI) partners in a secondary analysis of survey data.
METHODS
We collated data on numbers of sexual and CAI partners reported in a continuous scale (write-in number) in thirteen MSM surveys on sexual health and behaviour across 17 countries. Pooled descriptive statistics for the number of sexual and CAI partners during the last twelve (N = 55,180) and 6 months (N = 31,759) were calculated for two sets of categories commonly used in reporting numbers of sexual partners in sexual behaviour surveys.
RESULTS
The pooled mean number of partners in the previous 12 months for the total sample was 15.8 partners (SD = 36.6), while the median number of partners was 5 (IQR = 2-15). Means for number of partners in the previous 12 months for the first set of categories were: 16.4 for 11-20 partners (SD = 3.3); 27.8 for 21-30 (SD = 2.8); 38.6 for 31-40 (SD = 2.4); 49.6 for 41-50 (SD = 1.5); and 128.2 for 'more than 50' (SD = 98.1). Alternative upper cut-offs: 43.4 for 'more than 10' (SD = 57.7); 65.3 for 'more than 20' (SD = 70.3). Self-reported partner numbers for both time frames consistently exceeded 200 or 300. While there was substantial variation of overall means across surveys, the means for all chosen categories were very similar. Partner numbers above nine mainly clustered at multiples of tens, regardless of the selected time frame. The overall means for CAI partners were lower than those for sexual partners; however, such difference was completely absent from all categories beyond ten sexual and CAI partners.
CONCLUSIONS
Clustering of reported partner numbers confirm common MSM sexual behaviour surveys' questionnaire piloting feedback indicating that responses to numbers of sexual partners beyond 10 are best guesses rather than precise counts, but large partner numbers above typical upper cut-offs are common.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35249527
doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01483-8
pii: 10.1186/s12874-021-01483-8
pmc: PMC8898536
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

59

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Euro Surveill. 2009 Nov 26;14(47):
pubmed: 19941806
AIDS Care. 2020 May;32(sup2):162-169
pubmed: 32160761
BMC Public Health. 2016 Mar 02;16:212
pubmed: 26935752
BMC Infect Dis. 2020 Feb 7;20(1):110
pubmed: 32033533
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002 Nov 18;2:14
pubmed: 12435276
Euro Surveill. 2019 Jun;24(25):
pubmed: 31241039
AIDS Care. 2020 Dec;32(12):1506-1514
pubmed: 31983233
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 27;10(3):e0123151
pubmed: 25816322
Sex Health. 2018 Apr;15(2):144-150
pubmed: 29592829

Auteurs

Ana Mendez-Lopez (A)

Department of Preventive Medicine, Public Health and Microbiology, School of Medicine, Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Ford Hickson (F)

Sigma Research, Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.

Klaus Jansen (K)

Department for Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.

Nathan Lachowsky (N)

School of Public Health and Social Policy, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada.
Community Based Research Centre, Vancouver, Canada.

Fiona Burns (F)

Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.

Cinta Folch (C)

Centre d'Estudis Epidemiològics sobre les Infeccions de Transmissió Sexual i Sida de Catalunya (CEEISCAT), Agència de Salut Pública de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain; CIBER Epidemiologia y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.

Annie Velter (A)

Direction Prévention, Promotion de la santé, Agence nationale de santé publique, Saint Maurice, France.

Peter Weatherburn (P)

Sigma Research, Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.

Ulrich Marcus (U)

Department for Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany. marcusu@rki.de.

Ursula von Rüden (U)

Bundeszentrale für Gesundheitliche Aufklärung, Cologne, Germany.

Massimo Mirandola (M)

Infectious Diseases Section, Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
School of Health Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK.

Lorenzo Gios (L)

Infectious Diseases Section, Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
School of Health Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK.

Jamie Frankis (J)

School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.

David J Brennan (DJ)

Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Axel J Schmidt (AJ)

Sigma Research, Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. axel.j.schmidt@emis-project.eu.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH