"It's not just the hit itself": the social practice of injecting drug use among gay and bisexual men in Australia

Exploring practices to enhance benefits and reduce risks of chemsex among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men: A meta-ethnography

BACKGROUND

Chemsex is the intentional combining of specific drugs with sex, primarily by gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM), to enhance intimacy, pleasure, and prolong sexual sessions. Practices vary across geographic and social settings. Participants report benefits and risks of chemsex. Studies have previously reviewed chemsex practices and harm reduction interventions separately. This review aims to examine both together by describing and understanding practices that men employ to navigate the perceived benefits and risks of chemsex.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic meta-ethnographic review of published qualitative literature, screening titles, abstracts, and full texts on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Using reciprocal and refutational translation techniques, we analysed study participants' (first-order) and researchers' (second-order) accounts of benefit-enhancing and risk-reducing chemsex practices. Finally, we employed line-of-argument synthesis techniques to develop our own higher-level interpretations (third-order constructs) of these chemsex practices.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 6356 records, from which, we included 23 articles in our review. Most studies were conducted in high-income Western countries. Across studies, participants acted at the individual, interpersonal, and community levels to enhance benefits and reduce risks, which made up our third-order constructs. Eight themes emerged from first- and second-order constructs to describe these practices, which included personal preparation, personal boundaries, biomedical measures, structured use of drugs, leaning on partners, injecting practices, group organising, watching out for others, and teaching and learning. Contextual factors like trust, agency, access, stigma, and setting moderated whether and how participants engaged in these practices, and if practices enhanced benefits or reduced risks.

CONCLUSION

Health promotion programmes and research focused on chemsex must account for the benefits and the risks that GBMSM associate with this type of sexualised drug use and target the moderating factors that shape the practices they employ to navigate these benefits and risks.

Typologies of alcohol and other drug-related risk among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (trans) and queer adults

INTRODUCTION

Prevalence and patterns of alcohol and other drug (AOD) use among specific lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (trans) and queer (LGBTQ+) subpopulations are well established. However, patterns of substance-related risk have been less thoroughly explored. This study aimed to determine typologies AOD risk among LGBTQ+ adults in Australia.

METHOD

Latent class analyses were performed to determine distinct patterns of AOD risk (n = 6835), as measured by the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test and Drug Abuse Screening Tool. Demographic characteristics, experience of harassment, assault and/or threats, mental wellbeing and LGBTQ+ connectedness were compared across emergent classes.

RESULTS

AOD risk was characterised as 'no risk' (13.3% of sample), 'low risk' (15.1%), 'moderate risk' (alcohol + other drugs; 30.1%), or 'moderate alcohol only risk' (41.5%). The 'moderate risk' class was the most likely class to report recent sexual assault, verbal abuse, harassment and physical threats compared to other classes, while those in the 'moderate alcohol only risk' group were least likely to report these experiences of all classes. However, both the 'moderate risk' and 'moderate alcohol risk only' classes reported greater mental wellbeing and LGBTQ+ connectedness compared to the 'no risk' and 'low risk' classes.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that level of AOD risk is not uniform among some LGBTQ+ adults, nor is the distribution of harms experienced by them. Tailored harm-reduction interventions may be fruitful in attenuating harms based on risk profile; most specifically, LGBTQ+ individuals engaging in moderately risky concurrent AOD use.

People living with HIV who inject or have injected non-prescription drugs: Evidence of substantial differences in health inequalities and experiences of clinical care

INTRODUCTION

This study investigates differences in health and well-being associated with current, past or no injecting drug use (IDU) among people living with HIV (PLHIV) in Australia, identifying key health care considerations between injecting experiences.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the HIV Futures 9 study; a survey of PLHIV conducted in 2018-2019. Chi-square and analysis of variance analyses compared clinical and treatment characteristics, major physical and mental comorbidities, sexually transmitted infection diagnoses, and quality of life for those who reported current (last 12 months), past (12+ months ago) or no IDU.

RESULTS

Current IDU (n = 106) was associated with higher rates of sexually transmitted infection testing and diagnoses, higher frequency of self-reported antiretroviral therapy non-adherence due to drug use and greater social quality of life than past (n = 126) or no IDU (n = 508; total N = 740). Past and current IDUs were associated with more mental illness diagnoses and self-reported concern about drug use. Past IDU was associated with more physical comorbidities, lower satisfaction with clinical care and greater difficulty in affording health care than current or no IDU.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Past and current IDUs are associated with unique health concerns. However, past IDU appears to be related to greater dissatisfaction in navigating health care than individuals with current IDU experience. Higher social connection and the types of services being accessed by individuals who currently inject may play a role in shaping service satisfaction. Peer-based interventions to help support individuals in accessing services that are affirming of their needs is an ongoing priority.

Hi-fun among men who have sex with men in Bangkok: A scoping study exploring key informants' perspectives on hi-fun contexts, harms and support strategies

The use of specific drugs (e.g. methamphetamine, GHB/GBL and other stimulants) to enhance sex among men who have sex with men (MSM), is the focus of global public health concern because of links to social harms, poor mental and sexual health. Often called 'chemsex' in Western settings or 'hi-fun' in Southeast Asia, this type of sexualised drug use is increasingly visible in Thailand where the unique sociocultural and legislative environments shape sexual cultures and harms. This study aimed to develop an understanding of key informants' perspectives on hi-fun contexts, harms and current responses in Bangkok. In-depth interviews were conducted with thirteen key informants from clinical, community, policy and development organisations. Four key informants had personal experience of hi-fun. Interviews covered hi-fun contexts, harms and support, were transcribed verbatim, translated to English (where necessary) and analysed using a thematic framework. MSM hi-fun 'influencers' shape norms and provide support online, primarily through Twitter. Hi-fun was linked to Westernisation and wealth; complex hierarchies emerged from asymmetries in social/financial capital. Police coercion towards MSM engaged in hi-fun was a concern. Given the nature of their funding, HIV/HCV/STI transmission was the most pressing focus for many organisations, however key informants were concerned especially about drug overdoses and mental health/well-being impacts. The political and economic context means funding for MSM health in Thailand focuses primarily on HIV prevention/treatment; restrictions on development aid constrain holistic hi-fun focused service development. Most hi-fun support was informally developed; successful strategies relied on partnership working and peer developed/delivered services, some of which were adapted from high-income settings. Despite substantial barriers, organisations developed services responding to the needs of MSM engaged in hi-fun. Given that many were informally developed or adapted from high-income settings, establishing a theoretical basis for further interventions that is grounded in this unique context is a priority.

Does sexuality matter? A cross-sectional study of drug use, social injecting, and access to injection-specific care among men who inject drugs in Melbourne, Australia

BACKGROUND

Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) are overrepresented in cohorts of people who inject drugs. GBMSM's substance use is usually explored in the context of its contribution to sexual risk. We examined drug use practices, connectedness to other people who inject drugs, peer-to-peer injecting, and access to care among men who inject drugs in Melbourne, Australia. We aim to describe similarities and differences in these parameters for GBMSM and other men.

METHODS

Data were drawn from a prospective cohort study of people who inject drugs conducted in Melbourne, Australia, since 2009. This cross-sectional study used data collected between 2016 and 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to assess differences between GBMSM and other men.

RESULTS

Of 525 men who injected drugs over the study period, 48 (9%) identified as gay or bisexual, or reported sex with other men in the past 12 months. GBMSM and other men reported similar socio-demographics, drug practices (age of injecting initiation, most injected drug, peer-to-peer injecting, receptive syringe sharing) and access to injecting-specific care (drug treatment, source of needle-syringes). A significantly greater percentage of GBMSM reported past 12-month hepatitis C testing (69% vs. 52%, p = 0.028) and preferring methamphetamine (31% vs. 16%, p = 0.022). A higher percentage of GBMSM reported knowing > 50 other people who inject drugs (46% vs. 37%), but this difference was not statistically significant. Both groups primarily obtained injecting equipment from needle-syringe programs; a minority had accessed injecting-specific primary care.

CONCLUSION

Men who injected drugs in this cohort and those who identified as GBMSM reported similar drug and health-seeking practices. The higher prevalence of methamphetamine injecting among GBMSM may warrant different harm reduction support for this group. Health promotion should utilise opportunities to connect men who inject drugs in Melbourne to injecting-specific primary health care.