HIV/AIDS-related institutional mistrust among multiethnic men who have sex with men: effects on HIV testing and risk behaviors.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate relationships between institutional mistrust (systematic discrimination, organizational suspicion, and conspiracy beliefs), HIV risk behaviors, and HIV testing in a multiethnic sample of men who have sex with men (MSM), and to test whether perceived susceptibility to HIV mediates these relationships for White and ethnic minority MSM. METHOD: Participants were 394 MSM residing in Central Arizona (M age = 37 years). Three dimensions of mistrust were examined, including organizational suspicion, conspiracy beliefs, and systematic discrimination. Assessments of sexual risk behavior, HIV testing, and perceived susceptibility to HIV were made at study entry (T1) and again 6 months later (T2). RESULTS: There were no main effects of institutional mistrust dimensions or ethnic minority status on T2 risk behavior, but the interaction of systematic discrimination and conspiracy beliefs with minority status was significant such that higher levels of systematic discrimination and more conspiracy beliefs were associated with increased risk only among ethnic minority MSM. Higher levels of systematic discrimination were significantly related to lower likelihood for HIV testing, and the interaction of organizational suspicion with minority status was significant such that greater levels of organizational suspicion were related to less likelihood of having been tested for HIV among ethnic minority MSM. Perceived susceptibility did not mediate these relationships. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that it is important to look further into the differential effects of institutional mistrust across marginalized groups, including sexual and ethnic minorities. Aspects of mistrust should be addressed in HIV prevention and counseling efforts.

Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the predictive performance and potential clinical usefulness of risk calculators of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC RC) with and without information on prostate volume. METHODS: We studied 6 cohorts (5 European and 1 US) with a total of 15,300 men, all biopsied and with pre-biopsy TRUS measurements of prostate volume. Volume was categorized into 3 categories (25, 40, and 60 cc), to reflect use of digital rectal examination (DRE) for volume assessment. Risks of prostate cancer were calculated according to a ERSPC DRE-based RC (including PSA, DRE, prior biopsy, and prostate volume) and a PSA + DRE model (including PSA, DRE, and prior biopsy). Missing data on prostate volume were completed by single imputation. Risk predictions were evaluated with respect to calibration (graphically), discrimination (AUC curve), and clinical usefulness (net benefit, graphically assessed in decision curves). RESULTS: The AUCs of the ERSPC DRE-based RC ranged from 0.61 to 0.77 and were substantially larger than the AUCs of a model based on only PSA + DRE (ranging from 0.56 to 0.72) in each of the 6 cohorts. The ERSPC DRE-based RC provided net benefit over performing a prostate biopsy on the basis of PSA and DRE outcome in five of the six cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying men at increased risk for having a biopsy detectable prostate cancer should consider multiple factors, including an estimate of prostate volume.