Of the 502 complete responses to the Student Survey, 419 respondents were heterosexual and cisgender and 83 were LGBTI students.
Sexual experience
In the Student Survey 28.9% of LGBTI respondents reported sexual intercourse with two or more partners or oral sex with two or more partners in the past year and were classed as higher-risk. In comparison, 21.5% of heterosexual cisgender respondents were classified as higher-risk, however this difference was not statistically significant. The proportion of higher-risk respondents was higher among male-identifying LGBTI students (40.0%) than female-identifying LGBTI students (25.9%).
Testing
Rates of ever having received sexual health testing were approximately equal between the two groups, with 55.2% of LGBTI students and 54.8% of heterosexual cisgender having received a test. In contrast, LGBTI students were slightly more likely to have been tested in the past twelve months, with 36.2% of LGBTI respondents and 25.4% of heterosexual cisgender respondents tested in this period. This variation between the two groups was not statistically significant.
When analysing why students had not been tested, LGBTI and heterosexual cisgender responses were very similar, with the top four reasons common to both. ‘I haven’t had many sexual partners’ was the most common response for each (both 61.5%) followed by ‘my behaviours aren’t risky’ and ‘I always use protection’ (Table 5.14). The only comparison between LGBTI and heterosexual cisgender groups that yielded a statistically significant difference was ‘it’s far away / difficult to get to’ which was chosen more frequently by the LGBTI group (X2 (1, N = 161) = 3.86, p = .050).
Table 5.14 – Reasons for having never received a sexual health test by response frequency rank and percentage of LGBTI and heterosexual cisgender groups
Reason LGBTI rank and
(%) n = 26
Heterosexual rank and (%)
n = 135
I haven't had many sexual partners 1 (61.5%) 1 (61.5%)
My behaviours aren't risky 2 (57.7%) 1 (61.5%)
I always use protection 3 (42.3%) 3 (29.6%)
It's embarrassing 4 (26.9%) 4 (22.2%)
I don't have the time 5 (23.1%) 7 (11.9%)
I don't know where to get tested 6 (19.2%) 5 (18.5%)
Other 7 (19.2%) 6 (12.6%)
I haven't had sex 8 (11.5%) 8 (4.4%)
It's far away / difficult to get to 8 (11.5%) * 11 (3.0%)
I'm afraid of doctors 8 (11.5%) 10 (3.7%)
I can't afford it 11 (3.8%) 8 (4.4%)
Significantly higher than the other group at: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Previous sexual health learning experiences
In the LGBTI group 92.8% of respondents had received sex education in their high school, compared to 84.5% of those in the heterosexual cisgender group (Figure 5.3). However despite more LGBTI students reporting receiving sex education in high school, a significantly lower proportion of this group found it personally relevant (X2 (5, N = 431) = 21.4, p < .001). Of those who had received sex education, 26.0% of LGBTI group members said it was relevant or very relevant, compared to 45.5% of heterosexual cisgender group members.
LGBTI group members were also more likely to have attended a university sexual health promotion than those in the heterosexual cisgender group (19.3% versus 9.1%, (X2 (2, N = 502) = 7.71, p = .021). Again, LGBTI students were significantly less likely to have found these promotions relevant (X2 (3, N = 54) = 10.30, p = .016). Of those who had attended a sexual health promotion event at university, only 43.8% of LGBTI group members said it was relevant or very relevant, compared to 76.3% of heterosexual cisgender respondents.
Figure 5.3 - Comparison of previous sexual health learning experiences by LGBTI status (n=502)
Those respondents who had not attended any university sexual health promotion events were asked to select all the factors that most discouraged them from attending. Among both LGBTI and heterosexual cisgender groups the two most commonly selected responses were ‘I haven’t seen any advertised’ (53.7% and 43.8% respectively) and ‘I already know enough about sexual health’ (38.8% and 36.7%, Table 5.15). At the third reason the two groups began to diverge, with LGBTI respondents choosing ‘It’s embarrassing’ (32.8%) and heterosexual cisgender respondents selecting ‘my behaviours aren’t risky’ (34.1%). None of the reasons listed yielded statistically significant differences between LGBTI and heterosexual cisgender groups except for the ‘other’ category. LGBTI students were twice as likely to select this option, with the issue of current promotions not being personally relevant a key theme.
0 25 50 75 100
Received high school sex education Attended university sexual health
promotion P rop or ti on of s tu de nt r es pon se s (%)
Table 5.15 – Reasons for having never attended university sexual health promotions by response frequency rank and percentage of LGBTI and heterosexual groups
Reason LGBTI rank and
(%) n = 67
Heterosexual rank and (%)
n = 381
I haven't seen any advertised 1 (53.7%) 1 (43.8%)
I already know enough about sexual health
2 (38.8%) 2 (36.7%)
It's embarrassing 3 (32.8%) 5 (26.8%)
I haven't had sex 4 (31.3%) 6 (24.7%)
I don't have the time 5 (29.9%) 4 (30.2%)
My behaviours aren't risky 6 (26.9%) 3 (34.1%)
It would be boring 7 (19.4%) 8 (15.2%)
I haven't had many sexual partners 7 (19.4%) 7 (18.9%)
I always use protection 9 (13.4%) 9 (11.0%)
Other 10 (10.4%) 11 (5.2%)
They are far away / difficult to get to 11 (9.0%) 10 (6.3%)
Sexual health promotion preferences and provision
LGBTI and heterosexual cisgender respondents shared the same top three preferences for event type (Table 5.16). These were social events with a sexual health message (50.6% and 44.6% respectively), guest speakers (41.0% and 42.2%) and sexual health testing (38.6% and 35.6%). For the top two preferred event types, this matched with the events reported in the Promotion Survey, however at third preference this diverged. While workshops were the third most likely type of event to take place, they were the least preferred of the six options presented for both LGBTI and heterosexual cisgender groups. In contrast, both group’s third preference, sexual health testing, was the least likely event to take place out of the options given, being run in only 6.5% of the Promotion Survey event responses.
In both LGBTI (X2 (1, N = 145) = 19.60, p < .001) and heterosexual cisgender (X2 (1, N = 481) = 21.10, p < .001) groups the demand for sexual health testing was significantly higher than the supply of these events as reported in the Promotion Survey. This was also the case
for relevant movies, for LGBTI (X2 (1, N = 145) = 9.64, p = .002) and heterosexual cisgender respondents (X2 (1, N = 481) = 12.54, p < .001).
Table 5.16 – Event preferences by response frequency rank and percentage of respondents for LGBTI and heterosexual groups compared with events run
Event type LGBTI rank and
(%) n = 83
Heterosexual rank and (%)
n = 419
Event rank and (%)
n = 62 Social event with a sexual health
message
1 (50.6%) LL 1 (44.6%) LL 1 (72.6%)
Guest speaker 2 (41.0%) 2 (42.2%) L 2 (56.5%)
Sexual health testing 3 (38.6%) HH 3 (35.6%) HH 6 (6.5%)
Question & answer panel 4 (30.1%) 5 (24.1%) 3 (35.5%)
Relevant movie 5 (28.9%) HH 4 (29.4%) HH 5 (8.1%)
Workshop 6 (22.9%) 6 (17.2%) LL 3 (35.5%)
Other 7 (1.2%) 7 (2.1%) 7 (1.6%)
Student interest was significantly higher than event provision at: H p < 0.05, HH p < 0.01
Student interest was significantly lower than event provision at: L p < 0.05, LL p < 0.01
Sexual health topics
Out of 30 listed topics, 15 showed a statistically significant difference between LGBTI group selection and the topics currently featuring in university sexual health events (Table 5.17). In ten of these topics LGBTI group demand was significantly higher than event supply. These topics include gay, lesbian and bisexuality issues (ranked 1st, X2 (1, N = 145) = 7.24, p = .007), transgender and intersex issues (ranked equal 4th, X2 (1, N = 145) = 6.42, p = .011) and pleasure (ranked equal 6th, X2 (1, N = 145) = 10.45, p = .001). The top three topics for LGBTI respondents were gay, lesbian and bisexuality issues (74.7%), sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention (51.8%) and consent (49.4%).
For the heterosexual cisgender group, 19 topics showed a statistically significant difference between heterosexual cisgender group selection and the topics currently featuring in university sexual health events. In ten of these topics heterosexual cisgender demand was significantly higher than event supply. These topics include women’s health (ranked 1st, X2
(1, N = 481) = 4.03, p = .045), pleasure (4th, X2 (1, N = 481) = 9.00, p = .003) and men’s health (6th, X2 (1, N = 481) = 4.14, p = .042). The top three topics for heterosexual cisgender respondents were women’s health (45.8%), respectful relationships (44.4%) and sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention (41.3%).
Table 5.17 – Topic preferences by response frequency rank and percentage of respondents for LGBTI and heterosexual groups compared with events run
Topic LGBTI rank
and (%) n = 83 Heterosexual rank and (%) n = 419 Event rank and (%) n = 62 Gay, lesbian and bisexuality issues 1 (74.7%) HH 25 (18.6%) LL 6 (53.2%)
Sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention
2 (51.8%) 3 (41.3%) 6 (53.2%)
Consent 3 (49.4%) LL 9 (35.3%) LL 3 (71.0%)
Transgender and intersex issues 4 (48.2%) H 26 (17.7%) 16 (27.4%)
Women's health issues (e.g. cervical cancer)
4 (48.2%) 1 (45.8%) H 14 (32.3%)
Different cultural expectations about sex 6 (47.0%) HH 7 (37.0%) HH 21 (19.4%)
Pleasure 6 (47.0%) HH 4 (40.8%) HH 20 (21.0%)
Safe sex 6 (47.0%) LL 5 (40.6%) LL 1 (79.0%)
Respectful relationships 9 (45.8%) L 2 (44.4%) LL 4 (62.9%)
Who to contact for sexual health support 10 (44.6%) 10 (35.1%) LL 5 (58.1%)
Abortion 11 (42.2%) HH 14 (31.5%) HH 24 (9.7%)
Domestic violence prevention 12 (41.0%) 12 (34.1%) 15 (29.0%)
HIV/AIDS 13 (38.6%) 20 (24.6%) LL 10 (40.3%)
Pornography 14 (36.1%) HH 23 (22.2%) HH 28 (4.8%)
STI impacts/symptoms 14 (36.1%) 13 (33.7%) 9 (41.9%)
Men's health issues (e.g. testicular cancer) 16 (33.7%) 6 (37.5%) H 19 (24.2%)
STI testing 16 (33.7%) 15 (31.3%) 11 (38.7%)
Emergency contraception (e.g. the morning after pill)
18 (32.5%) 7 (37.0%) 17 (25.8%)
Sex work 18 (32.5%) HH 27 (16.7%) 25 (8.1%)
Alcohol and sex 20 (31.3%) L 16 (29.8%) LL 8 (48.4%)
Alternative barrier methods (e.g. dams, female condoms)
20 (31.3%) 22 (22.9%) L 12 (37.1%)
Long acting reversible contraception (e.g. implanon, IUDs)
20 (31.3%) H 17 (27.9%) H 22 (16.1%)
STI statistics 23 (30.1%) 18 (26.5%) 13 (35.5%)
The pill 24 (28.9%) 10 (35.1%) 17 (25.8%)
Dating and hook up apps/websites (e.g. Tinder and Grindr)
25 (26.5%) HH 24 (21.5%) HH 27 (6.5%)
Anatomy 26 (24.1%) HH 28 (14.6%) H 28 (4.8%)
Sexting and digital privacy 26 (24.1%) 19 (25.8%) H 23 (12.9%)
Condoms 28 (18.1%) LL 21 (23.4%) LL 2 (77.4%)
Abstinence 29 (12.0%) 29 (11.7%) 25 (8.1%)
Other 30 (3.6%) 30 (2.1%) 30 (0.0%)
Student interest was significantly higher than event provision at: H p < 0.05, HH p < 0.01
Incentives and motivating factors to attend
LGBTI and heterosexual cisgender group members shared the same ordering of preferred incentives. The most frequently chosen incentive was free food (51.8% and 53.2% respectively), followed by combination with a social event (45.8% and 43.2%) and free alcohol (37.3% and 33.9%) (Table 5.18). Free alcohol was the only statistically significant difference when comparing LGBTI (X2 (1, N = 145) = 9.26, p = .002) and heterosexual cisgender (X2 (1, N = 481) = 9.41, p = .002) demand with event supply. Alcohol was the least likely type of incentive to be provided at existing university sexual health promotion events.
Table 5.18 – Incentive preferences by response frequency rank and percentage of respondents for LGBTI and heterosexual groups compared with events run
Incentive LGBTI rank
and (%) n = 83 Heterosexual rank and (%) n = 419 Event rank and (%) n = 62
Free food and/or non-alcoholic drinks 1 (51.8%) 1 (53.2%) 1 (66.1%)
Combined with social activity (e.g. party, movie night)
2 (45.8%) 2 (43.2%) 2 (45.2%)
Free alcohol 3 (37.3%) HH 3 (33.9%) HH 4 (14.5%)
Other 4 (2.4%) 4 (6.0%) 3 (19.4%)
Student interest was significantly higher than event provision at: H p < 0.05, HH p < 0.01
Student interest was significantly lower than event provision at: L p < 0.05, LL p < 0.01
The most commonly chosen motivating factor for LGBTI and heterosexual cisgender groups was ‘knowing a friend who was going’ (Table 5.19). While this was the same for both groups, there was also a significant difference in the degree of selection (X2 (1, N = 502) = 10.28, p < .001) with 75.9% of LGBTI respondents selecting this option compared to 57.0% of heterosexual cisgender respondents. The only other significant difference (X2 (1, N = 502) = 82.26, p < .001) between the two groups was ‘relevant to my sexual orientation’, chosen by 61.4% of LGBTI respondents (2nd) and 15.5% of heterosexual cisgender respondents (10th). The second most common response among heterosexual cisgender respondents was free food and non-alcoholic drinks at 53.2%.
Table 5.19 - Motivating factors to attend by response frequency rank and percentage of respondents for LGBTI and heterosexual groups
Motivation LGBTI rank and
(%) n = 83
Heterosexual rank and (%)
n = 419
Knowing a friend who was going 1 (75.9%) ** 1 (57.0%)
Relevant to my sexual orientation 2 (61.4%) ** 10 (15.5%)
Free food and/or non-alcoholic drinks 3 (51.8%) 2 (53.2%)
Combined with social activity (e.g. party, movie night)
4 (45.8%) 3 (43.2%)
Free sexual health testing 5 (39.8%) 4 (36.8%)
Free giveaways/prizes 6 (37.3%) 7 (29.4%)
Free safe sex supplies 6 (37.3%) 6 (31.5%)
Free alcohol 6 (37.3%) 5 (33.9%)
The opportunity to meet new people 9 (24.1%) 8 (21.7%)
Games 10 (21.7%) 9 (16.7%)
Sensitive to my culture 11 (15.7%) 11 (9.8%)
Presented in my first language (if other than English)
12 (2.4%) 13 (4.1%)
Other 13 (2.4%) 12 (6.0%)