Explore the vast range of titles available.

In May 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for adolescents under age 18. Although this is an important step toward HIV prevention for adolescents assigned male at birth who have sex with males (AMSM), limited research exists to gauge their awareness of PrEP as a prevention option. Additionally, the attitudes and perceived barriers regarding PrEP among this population have not been well studied. We conducted an online survey from February to April 2018, in which 219 AMSM age 15–17 read a description of PrEP, and then answered questions about PrEP awareness, perceived barriers, and demographic and behavioral correlates. A slight majority (54.8%) had heard of PrEP before, and 56.1% did not know how they would access PrEP. Of those who had heard of PrEP, 2.5% had ever used it. Most had first learned about PrEP online, through media or geosocial networking (GSN) applications to meet male partners. Those who had heard of PrEP were more likely to be older, to have used GSN applications, and to have greater HIV knowledge. Not knowing how to access PrEP was predicted by having had more partners, lower HIV knowledge, and never having talked to a provider about PrEP. Believing that one could not afford PrEP was predicted by greater perceived risk of HIV. Findings suggest moderate awareness of PrEP among AMSM, that youth at greater risk of HIV may perceive greater barriers, and that online spaces can play a significant role in increasing PrEP knowledge and reducing implementation barriers.

Dating and social media application (“app”) use for sexual and romantic partner-seeking is increasingly ubiquitous among adolescent sexual minorities assigned male at birth (ASMM). Previous work suggests that ASMM use the Internet, including apps, for normative aspects of sexual identity exploration and development. However, there may be risks associated with their use of sexualized apps designed for adults and with sexual interaction with adult app users. Little is known about how they assess and mitigate risk or gauge the trustworthiness of potential partners on such apps. We recruited ASMM in the U.S. ( N  = 268; ages 15–18 years, mean age = 16.9) to complete an online survey with open- and closed-ended questions about their perceptions of safety and trustworthiness of others while using apps to find partners. Participants perceived various risks on apps (e.g., physical harm, being “catfished”) but did not appear to have clear strategies for measuring or mitigating it. They often assessed trustworthiness by observing other users’ behavior or profiles. Participants frequently described interacting with older app users as risky or untrustworthy. Sexual health risks were seldom mentioned and the legal risks of sexual interaction with adults were never mentioned. Although app use may meet some of ASMM’s sexual development needs, they may lack the knowledge and skills to do so safely in sexualized online adult spaces. These findings suggest that sex education for sexual minority adolescents should address online sexual safety.

Sexual minority youth are at increased risk of substance use compared to their heterosexual peers, and bisexual youth appear to be at greatest risk. However, little is known about their motivations for and against using substances, how they make decisions, and what consequences they experience. We used qualitative data from a study of 54 cisgender and transgender male youth (ages 14–17 years) who reported attractions to more than one gender or regardless of gender (i.e., bisexual, pansexual, or queer; collectively referred to as bi+) to explore these aspects of substance use. Participants completed a survey and an interview, and interviews were thematically analyzed. Qualitative analyses revealed that participants described diverse motivations for using substances (e.g., to cope with stress, to experiment, to have fun) and for not using them (e.g., concern about consequences, not having access). The most common sources of stress were mental health problems, school, and family. They did not describe sexual orientation-related stress as a motivation for their use, but they acknowledged that it could influence others’ use. Participants also described thinking about when, where, and with whom they were going to use prior to doing so (e.g., only using in safe places and with people who they trusted). Finally, they described a range of consequences they experienced (e.g., getting sick, getting in trouble), and a subset of transgender participants described experiencing dependence symptoms. These findings suggest that substance use prevention and harm reduction interventions for bi+ male youth should address diverse motivations for use, including general stressors, which are often overlooked compared to minority-specific stressors. Further, interventions should approach youth as capable of making decisions. Findings also highlight the particular need to address substance use among transgender youth.

Introduction Bisexual male youth are more likely to engage in certain behaviors that contribute to HIV/STI transmission (e.g., substance use) than are heterosexual and gay male youth. However, sexuality education rarely addresses the unique needs of sexual minority youth, especially bisexual, pansexual, and queer (bi+) youth, and little is known about their sexuality education experiences and preferences. As such, the goal of this study was to examine bi+ male youth’s experiences learning about sex and their preferences for sexuality education.MethodsIn 2019, 56 bi+ male youth ages 14–17 were surveyed and interviewed about their sexuality education experiences and preferences. Participants identified as bisexual (64%), pansexual (27%), and queer (9%), were racially/ethnically diverse (39% white, 32% Latinx, 20% Black, 9% other races), and included cisgender (79%) and transgender (21%) male youth.ResultsParticipants described varied experiences with school-based sexuality education (e.g., none, abstinence only, covered sexual health in some way), but it rarely addressed their unique needs. They typically learned about sex by searching for information online and from sexually explicit media. Participants identified several topics they wanted to learn more about (e.g., sex with same-gender partners, anal sex, consent), but they typically believed they were prepared to have sex. Finally, some participants described benefits of tailoring sexuality education to their unique needs, while others described benefits of more inclusive programs.Conclusions and Policy ImplicationsFindings suggest that bi+ male youth do not receive adequate sexuality education to make informed decisions about safer sex, highlighting the critical need for reform.

Self-identified bisexual men are at increased risk for negative health outcomes, but there are no interventions tailored to their unique needs. In order to develop interventions for this population, it is first necessary to understand their preferences. As part of a larger study, 128 cisgender men who identified as bisexual reported on their preferences for different intervention components. Large proportions of participants prioritized addressing both health (e.g., mental health, HIV/STI) and psychosocial experiences (e.g., dating/relationships, discrimination/victimization). A slightly larger proportion of participants preferred an intervention for gay and bisexual men together compared to an intervention for bisexual men only. However, those who reported more discrimination and recent female sexual partners were more likely to prefer an intervention for bisexual men only. Larger proportions of participants preferred a group intervention compared to an individual intervention and an in-person intervention compared to an online intervention. These findings highlight the importance of addressing both health and psychosocial experiences in tailored interventions for self-identified bisexual men. Further, while in-person and group interventions may appeal to larger proportions of self-identified bisexual men, the appeal of an intervention for gay and bisexual men together compared to an intervention for bisexual men only may depend on individual and social/contextual factors.