PubMed · 10827613
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R Redwood. 1999. Narrative and narrative analysis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10827613/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Unprotected sex among gay/bisexual men throughout the AIDS epidemic has usually been described as unintentional due to a relapse from safer sex behavior. The term "barebacking" emerged among HIV-positive men explicitly seeking unprotected sex with seroconcordant partners, but has come into use in the larger gay community to simply mean condomless sex. Some men have also taken on the identity as a "barebacker." The present study assessed prevalence and predictors of bareback identity in a sample 687 gay/bisexual men attending community events. Barebackers reported significantly more use of crystal methamphetamine and higher peer norms for unprotected sex; HIV-negative barebackers were higher in sexual compulsivity while HIV-positive barebackers were higher in romantic obsession as well as drug/alcohol influenced sexual expectancies. HIV prevention efforts targeting barebackers and barebacking must be carefully developed if programs and campaigns are to be effective given the open debates about this phenomenon in the gay community.
Changes in scores on health status questionnaires are difficult to interpret. Several methods to determine minimally important changes (MICs) have been proposed which can broadly be divided in distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Comparisons of these methods have led to insight into essential differences between these approaches. Some authors have tried to come to a uniform measure for the MIC, such as 0.5 standard deviation and the value of one standard error of measurement (SEM). Others have emphasized the diversity of MIC values, depending on the type of anchor, the definition of minimal importance on the anchor, and characteristics of the disease under study. A closer look makes clear that some distribution-based methods have been merely focused on minimally detectable changes. For assessing minimally important changes, anchor-based methods are preferred, as they include a definition of what is minimally important. Acknowledging the distinction between minimally detectable and minimally important changes is useful, not only to avoid confusion among MIC methods, but also to gain information on two important benchmarks on the scale of a health status measurement instrument. Appreciating the distinction, it becomes possible to judge whether the minimally detectable change of a measurement instrument is sufficiently small to detect minimally important changes.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.