How "Community" Matters for How People Interact With Information: Mixed Methods Study of Young Men Who Have Sex With Other Men

BACKGROUND: We lack a systematic portrait of the relationship between community involvement and how people interact with information. Young men who have sex with men (YMSM) are a population for which these relationships are especially salient: their gay community involvement varies and their information technology use is high. YMSM under age 24 are also one of the US populations with the highest risk of HIV/AIDS. OBJECTIVE: To develop, test, and refine a model of gay community involvement (GCI) factors in human-information interaction (HII) as applied to HIV/AIDS information among YMSM, specifically examining the role of Internet use in GCI and HII. METHODS: Mixed methods included: 1) online questionnaire with 194 YMSM; and 2) qualitative interviews with 19 YMSM with high GCI levels. Recruitment utilized social media, dating websites, health clinics, bars/clubs, and public postings. The survey included questions regarding HIV/AIDS–related information acquisition and use patterns, gay community involvement, risk behaviors, and technology use. For survey data, we tested multiple linear regression models using a series of community- and information-related variables as dependent variables. Independent variables included community- and information-related variables and demographic covariates. We then conducted a recursive path analysis in order to estimate a final model, which we refined through a grounded theory analysis of qualitative interview data. RESULTS: Four community-related variables significantly predicted how people interact with information (HII variables): 1) gay community involvement (GCI), 2) social costs of information seeking, 3) network expertise accessibility, and 4) community relevance. GCI was associated with significantly lower perceived social costs of HIV/AIDS information seeking (R (2)=0.07). GCI and social costs significantly predicted network expertise accessibility (R (2)=0.14). GCI predicted 14% of the variance in community relevance and 9% of the variance in information seeking frequency. Incidental HIV/AIDS information acquisition (IIA) was also significantly predicted by GCI (R (2)=0.16). 28% of the variance in HIV/AIDS information use was explained by community relevance, network expertise access, and both IIA and information seeking. The final path model showed good fit: the RSMEA was 0.054 (90% CI: .000-.101); the Chi-square was non-significant (χ(2)(11)=17.105; P=.105); and the CFI was 0.967. Qualitative findings suggest that the model may be enhanced by including information sharing: organizing events, disseminating messages, encouraging safety, and referring and recommending. Information sharing emerged under conditions of pro-social community value enactment and may have consequences for further HII. YMSM with greater GCI generally used the Internet more, although they chatted online less. CONCLUSIONS: HIV/AIDS–related HII and associated technology uses are community-embedded processes. The model provides theoretical mediators that may serve as a focus for intervention: 1) valuing HIV/AIDS information, through believing it is relevant to one’s group, and 2) supportive and knowledgeable network members with whom to talk about HIV/AIDS. Pro-social community value endorsement and information sharing may also be important theoretical mediators. Our model could open possibilities for considering how informatics interventions can also be designed as community-level interventions and vice versa.