Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul;39(13-14):3088-3109.
doi: 10.1177/08862605231225517. Epub 2024 Jan 20.

Substance Use and Associated Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence Among MSM in Los Angeles, California

Amanda Pearl Miller  1 , Yan Wang  2 , Steve Shoptaw  2 , Pamina M Gorbach  2 , Marjan Javanbakht  2
Affiliations

Substance Use and Associated Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence Among MSM in Los Angeles, California

Amanda Pearl Miller et al. J Interpers Violence. 2024 Jul.

Abstract

This study examined the prevalence and correlates of intimate partner violence (IPV) among a cohort of racial/ethnically diverse men who have sex with men (MSM) in Los Angeles. An ongoing longitudinal cohort study of MSM in Los Angeles, constructed by design so half of the participants use substances (SU) and half are persons living with HIV, provided data. Data collection occured between 2014 and 2020. At semiannual study visits, participants completed a computer-assisted self-interview which included questions on substance use (past 6 months) and experiences of IPV (past 12 months). The criterion variable was reported physical and sexual IPV. Multivariable models generalized estimating equations (GEE) estimated associations between reported SU and physical and sexual IPV, adjusting for repeated measurement and confounders. In total, 557 persons (2,962 visits) contributed to the analysis; the median baseline age was 30 years (interquartile range: 28.0-39.0). The prevalence of IPV in the past 12 months was 22.3%, with 18.3% reporting physical and 10.2% reporting sexual IPV across study visits. Stimulant use prevalence was higher among those who reported IPV compared to those who did not (68% vs. 42.1%; p < .001); cannabis use prevalence was lower among those reporting IPV (42.3% vs. 49% respectively; p < .001). Adjusted analysis showed reported stimulant use associated with greater odds of physical IPV (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.4, 2.8], p < .001) but not sexual IPV (aOR = 1.3; 95% CI [0.8, 2.0], p = .332). Models stratified by HIV status yielded similar results. Findings showed a high prevalence of past-year IPV experiences among MSM in Los Angeles. Findings highlight links between SU and IPV and underscore a significantly increased likelihood of IPV for MSM in Los Angeles who report current methamphetamine use. This study provides evidence to support universal IPV screening and to make available safety resources at all points where MSM seek healthcare.

Keywords: GLBT; alcohol and drugs; domestic violence; sexual assault.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Conceptual model of factors affecting IPV among MSM. Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; MSM = men who have sex with men.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Multivariable regression analysis of the association between substance use and experience of any IPV among mSTUDY participants (8/2014–03/2020). **Adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, transactional sex, depression, serostatus-neutral HIV prevention, partner type, and homelessness. ***x-axis is the log scale. Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Multivariable regression analysis of the association between substance use and experience of physical IPV among mSTUDY participants (8/2014–03/2020). **Adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, transactional sex, depression, serostatus-neutral HIV prevention, partner type, and homelessness. ***x-axis is the log scale. Note. IPV=intimate partner violence.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Multivariable regression analysis of the association between substance use and experience of sexual IPV among mSTUDY participants (8/2014–03/2020). **Adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, transactional sex, depression, serostatus-neutral HIV prevention, partner type, and homelessness. ***x-axis is the log scale. Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Aguero JM (2021). COVID-19 and the rise of intimate partner violence. World Development, 137, 105217. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105217 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. American Medical Association. (1992). Abuse assessment screen. Developer: Judith McFarlane, Barbara Parker, Karen Soeken, & Linda Bullock. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 3176–3178. - PubMed
    1. Ard KL, & Makadon HJ (2011). Addressing intimate partner violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26(8), 930–933. 10.1007/s11606-011-1697-6 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arenas-Arroyo E, Fernandez-Kranz D, & Nollenberger N (2021). Intimate partner violence under forced cohabitation and economic stress: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Economics, 194, 104350. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104350 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aziz S, & Sweat D (2018). Subsequent HIV diagnosis risk after syphilis in a southern black population. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 45(10), 643–647. 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000841 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types