DOCSLIB.ORG

Using HIV Status and Viral Load Knowledge for Decision Making in Sexual Behavior: Outcome Analysis from the Medical Monitoring Project in Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Using HIV Status and Viral Load Knowledge for Decision Making in Sexual Behavior: Outcome Analysis from the Medical Monitoring Project in Texas Using HIV Status and Viral Load Knowledge for Decision Making in Sexual Behavior: Outcome Analysis from the Medical Monitoring Project in Texas 1 Sears, SC. MPH 1 ; Odem, SL. MPH 1 ; Poe, JD. MSSW 1 ; Wu, M. MPH 1 ; Mgbere,O. PhD, MS, MPH 2 ; Singh, M. PhD 2 ; McNeese, ML. PhD, MPH 2 1 TB/HIV/STD Epidemiology & Surveillance Branch, Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, TX 2 Office of Surveillance and Public Health Preparedness, Houston Health Department, Houston TX Background 2 Condom use has been the most widely recognized and promoted form of protected sexual behavior. However, research shows there are other harm reduction strategies for sexual behavior that can be effectively used by HIV-positive persons. Serosorting, selecting partners of concordant HIV serostatus, and having an undetectable viral load (VL) are two such harm reduction strategies. Objective 3 This analysis assessed the association of HIV status and VL knowledge with sexual behavior decision making among people living with HIV (PLWH) receiving care in Texas. Methods 4 The Medical Monitoring Project (MMP) is an ongoing surveillance system funded by the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that uses a three stage cluster sampling method to assess behaviors and clinical characteristics of PLWH who are receiving outpatient medical care. From the Texas and Houston MMP facilities, 470 of 800 sampled persons participated in the 2012 cycle. Data were collected using an in-person interview and a medical record abstraction. In the interview, participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with four statements related to serosorting and viral load as well as about their sexual behaviors in the past 12 months. The weighted interview dataset was analyzed to assess participant responses using SAS 9.3. Differences were assessed using Rao-Scott chi-square tests at significance level of p<0.05. Data are weighted to adjust for non-response bias. 5 Results Demographics N=470 6 Characteristics N % Gender Male 328 70% Female 133 28% Transgender 9 2% Race/Ethnicity White, non-Hispanic 113 29% Black, non-Hispanic 196 40% Hispanic 144 26% Other 17 5% Age Category 18-29 years 38 9% 30-39 years 108 23% 40-49 years 142 29% 50+ years 182 39% Education Less than high school 106 21% High school degree/equivalent 132 28% Greater than high school 232 51% Source: 2012 TX/HOU MMP weighted interview and MRA datasets Statement 1: If my partner tells me he or she is HIV positive, I am more likely to have unprotected sex n=462 7 100% Responses to Statement 1 90% 80% 78% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 17% 20% 10% 5% 0% Neutral Agreed Disagreed Associations significant at p<0.0001 Source: 2012 TX/HOU MMP weighted interview and MRA datasets Condomless Sex by Level of Agreement to Statement 1 n=450 8 100% 90% 80% 40% 46% 70% 60% 88% 50% 40% 30% 60% 54% 20% 10% 12% 0% Neutral Agreed Disagreed Associations n=24 (5%) n=76 (17%) n=350 (78%) significant at Any condomless sex past 12 months No condomless sex in past 12 months p<0.0001 Statement 1: If my partner tells me he or she is HIV positive, I am more likely to have unprotected sex Source: 2012 TX/HOU MMP weighted interview and MRA datasets Sexual Behavior and Partner Status by Level of Agreement with Statement 1 n=450 9 100% 5% 90% 7% 29% 80% 40% 70% 34% 60% 24% Condomless sex with at least one HIV- or unknown status partner 50% 20% 13% Condomless sex with HIV+ 40% partners only 30% 16% 54% Sex with condoms only 20% 34% 10% 24% Celibacy/Low risk sex 0% Neutral Agree Disagree n=24 (5%) n=76 (17%) n=350 (78%) Associations significant at p<0.0001 Statement 1: If my partner tells me he or she is HIV positive, I am more likely to have unprotected sex Source: 2012 TX/HOU MMP weighted interview and MRA datasets Statement 2: If my partner tells me or she is HIV positive, we don’t have to worry about using condoms n=461 10 100% Responses to Statement 2 90% 84% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 11% 10% 5% 0% Neutral Agreed Disagreed Associations significant at p<0.0001 Source: 2012 TX/HOU MMP weighted interview and MRA datasets Condomless Sex by Level of Agreement to Statement 2 n=449 11 100% 90% 80% 41% 70% 61% 60% 82% 50% 40% 30% 59% 20% 39% 10% 18% 0% Neutral Agreed Disagreed n=22 (5%) n=50 (9%) n=377 (86%) Associations Any condomless sex past 12 months No condomless sex in past 12 months significant at p<0.01 Statement 2: If my partner tells me he or she is HIV positive, we don’t have to worry about using condoms Source: 2012 TX/HOU MMP weighted interview and MRA datasets Sexual Behavior and Partner Status by Level of Agreement with Statement 2 n=449 12 100% 9% 90% 28% 9% 80% 35% 70% 11% 33% Condomless sex with at 60% least one HIV- or unknown status 24% partner 50% 21% Condomless sex with 40% 4% HIV+ partners only 30% 49% Sex with condoms only 20% 37% 40% 10% Celibacy/Low risk sex 0% Neutral Agree Disagree n=50 (9%) n=377 (86%) n=22 (5%) Associations significant at p<0.01 Statement 2: If my partner tells me he or she is HIV positive, we don’t have to worry about using condoms Source: 2012 TX/HOU MMP weighted interview and MRA datasets Statement 3: If I have an undetectable HIV viral load, I am more likely to have unprotected sex n=461 13 100% Responses to Statement 3 90% 84% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 12% 10% 4% 0% Neutral Agreed Disagreed Associations significant at p<0.0001 Source: 2012 TX/HOU MMP weighted interview and MRA datasets Condomless Sex by Level of Agreement to Statement 3 n=448 14 100% 90% 80% 40% 48% 70% 60% 84% 50% 40% 30% 60% 52% 20% 10% 16% 0% Neutral Agreed Disagreed n=15 (3%) n=56 (12%) n=377 (85%) Associations significant at Any condomless sex past 12 months No condomless sex in past 12 months p<0.0001 Statement 3: If I have an undetectable HIV viral load, I am more likely to have unprotected sex Source: 2012 TX/HOU MMP weighted interview and MRA datasets Agreement with Statement 3 and Viral Load Status by Sexual Behavior n=433 15 Agreement/Viral Load Any No condomless Status* condomless sex in past 12 sex in past months 12 months Agreed with Statement 3 Undetectable VL (n=45) 45% 55% Detectable VL (n=11) 83% 17% (p<0.05)** Disagreed with Statement 3 Undetectable VL (n=292) 17% 83% Detectable VL (n=85) 15% 85% *Most recent VL in medical chart (p=0.75) ** Associations significant at p<0.05 Statement 3: If I have an undetectable HIV viral load, I am more likely to have unprotected sex Source: 2012 TX/HOU MMP weighted interview and MRA datasets Statement 4: Having an undetectable viral load means I can worry less about having to use condoms n=461 16 100% Responses to Statement 4 90% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 4% 6% 0% Neutral Agreed Disagreed Associations significant at p<0.0001 Source: 2012 TX/HOU MMP weighted interview and MRA datasets Condomless Sex by Level of Agreement to Statement 4 n=448 17 100% 90% 80% 49% 50% 70% 60% 82% 50% 40% 30% 51% 50% 20% 10% 18% 0% Neutral Agreed Disagreed n=19 (5%) n=27 (6%) n=402 (89%) Associations significant at Any condomless sex past 12 months No condomless sex in past 12 months p<0.01 Statement 4: Having an undetectable viral load means I can worry less about having to use condoms Source: 2012 TX/HOU MMP weighted interview and MRA datasets Agreement with Statement 4 and Viral Load Status by Sexual Behavior n=429 18 Agreement/Viral Load Any No condomless Status* condomless sex in past 12 sex in past months 12 months Agreed with Statement 4 Undetectable VL (n=22) 47% 53% Detectable VL (n=5) 60% 40% (p=0.65) Disagreed with Statement 4 Undetectable VL (n=311) 18% 82% Detectable VL (n=91) 20% 80% *Most recent VL in medical chart (p=0.69) ** Associations not significant Statement 4: Having an undetectable viral load means I can worry less about having to use condoms Source: 2012 TX/HOU MMP weighted interview and MRA datasets Conclusions 19 Texas MMP data suggest significant differences between the level of agreement with serosorting and viral load statements and condom use. As sexual harm reduction strategies are increasingly incorporated into prevention messages, a focus towards behavioral change beyond just using condoms is needed as transmission and spread of HIV depends on volitional behavior of people. It is important to use behavior change theories that consider knowledge, beliefs, and skills needed to make changes. Educating PLWH on evaluating the risks associated with each strategy is needed to make informed decisions. Limitations 20 Limitations: •Potential for recall bias and social desirability bias in interview data •This analysis makes inferences between serosorting beliefs/viral load status and condom use. Participants are not asked their reasons for not using condoms. Acknowledgements 21 Texas MMP/Houston MMP Collaborating Healthcare Providers Texas MMP/Houston MMP Staff and Management Clinical Outcomes Team, Behavioral and Clinical Surveillance Branch, Behavioral and Clinical Surveillance Branch, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES AMONG URBAN AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKA NATIVE MEN WHO HAVE SEX with MEN Cynthia R
    AIDS Education and Prevention, 25(1), 25–37, 2013 © 2013 The Guilford Press PEARSON ET AL. RISK REDUCTION AMONG AIAN MSM A CAUTIONARY TALE: RISK REDUCTION STRATEGIES AMONG URBAN AMERICAN INDIAN/ALASKA NATIVE MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN Cynthia R. Pearson, Karina L. Walters, Jane M. Simoni, Ramona Beltran, and Kimberly M. Nelson American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) men who have sex with men (MSM) are considered particularly high risk for HIV transmission and acquisition. In a multi-site cross-sectional survey, 174 AIAN men reported having sex with a man in the past 12 months. We describe harm reduc- tion strategies and sexual behavior by HIV serostatus and seroconcordant partnerships. About half (51.3%) of the respondents reported no anal sex or 100% condom use and 8% were in seroconcordant monogamous partnership. Of the 65 men who reported any sero-adaptive strategy (e.g., 100% seroconcordant partnership, strategic positioning or engaging in any strategy half or most of the time), only 35 (54.7%) disclosed their serosta- tus to their partners and 27 (41.5%) tested for HIV in the past 3 months. Public health messages directed towards AIAN MSM should continue to encourage risk reduction practices, including condom use and sero-adaptive behaviors. However, messages should emphasize the importance of HIV testing and HIV serostatus disclosure when relying solely on sero-adaptive practices. HIV/AIDS is an increasing threat to the health and well-being of American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIAN) across the United States (U.S.). According to the Na- tional HIV/AIDS Surveillance System, through 2009 an estimated cumulative total of 3,700 AIDS cases among AIAN were reported to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011a), with a 2009 estimated AIDS case rate of 6.6 per Cynthia R.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Knowledge of HIV Status As an HIV Prevention Strategy
    From Prevention in Focus, Spring 2014 Unknown, negative or positive? Using knowledge of HIV status as an HIV prevention strategy By James Wilton and Tim Rogers As front-line workers in HIV prevention, it is important to understand what prevention strategies clients are using and how they understand the risks associated with them. A common HIV prevention strategy used by gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) is known as “serosorting” and involves limiting all – or just “high-risk” – sexual activities to partners who have the same HIV status. For example, an HIV-negative person may choose to only have condomless sex with other people who are HIV negative or an HIV-positive person may choose to only have condomless sex with other people who are HIV positive. This strategy is used in the context of different types of relationships, such as stable, casual, monogamous and non-monogamous relationships. This article focuses on how often serosorting is used, how well it works, and how knowledge of HIV status can be effectively used as a prevention strategy. The article only covers serosorting strategies that are based on individuals identifying themselves or others as HIV-positive or HIV-negative. It does not address other factors, such as viral load or use of other HIV prevention strategies, which play a very important role in assessing HIV risk. For information on these other strategies, please see the resource list at the end of the article. How common is serosorting? Serosorting is quite common among MSM in Canada and other parts of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • A Novel Approach to Prevention for At-Risk HIV-Negative Menwhohavesexwithmen:Creatingateachablemoment to Promote Informed Sexual Decision-Making
    RESEARCH AND PRACTICE A Novel Approach to Prevention for At-Risk HIV-Negative MenWhoHaveSexWithMen:CreatingaTeachableMoment to Promote Informed Sexual Decision-Making Lisa A. Eaton, PhD, Chauncey Cherry, MPH, Demetria Cain, MPH, and Howard Pope In the United States alone, 56000 new HIV Objectives. As a result of the impact of HIV among men who have sex with infections occur each year, the majority among men (MSM), multiple strategies for reducing HIV risks have emerged from within men who have sex with men (MSM).1 The stable the gay community. One common HIV risk reduction strategy limits unprotected number of MSM becoming infected with HIV sex partners to those who are of the same HIV status (serosorting). We tested testifies to the need for new and innovative a novel, brief, one-on-one intervention, based on informed decision-making and approachestoHIVpreventioninthishigh delivered by peer counselors, designed to address the limitations of serosorting priority population. Community-based pre- (e.g., risk for HIV transmission). vention programs targeting MSM have dwindled Methods. In 2009, we recruited a group of 149 at-risk men living in Atlanta, over the past decade, and only 3 evidence-based Georgia, and randomly assigned them to an intervention condition addressing interventions designed specifically for MSM are serosorting or a standard-of-care control condition. disseminated by the Centers for Disease Control Results. Men in the serosorting intervention reported fewer sexual partners 2 and Prevention, none of which are individual- (Wald c =8.79, P<.01) at the study follow-ups. Behavioral results were also consistent with changes in psychosocial variables, including condom use self- level or brief interventions (for details, see http:// efficacy and perceptions of risk for HIV transmission.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012/2013 Annual Report
    VICTORIAN AIDS COUNCIL / GAY MEN’S HEALTH CENTRE ANNUAL REPORT 2012-13 OUR FIRST SAFE SEX STICKER, 1985 MARK SAWYER: VOLUNTEER SINCE 2012 Then&Now In 1983 not much was In 2013, HIV prevention known about HIV. No one has come a long way. was certain how it was Condoms, clean needles transmitted. There was and safe sex, safer, better no test you could take to treatments, undetectable viral determine if you had the load, pre and post exposure virus. Concerned members prophylaxis and rapid testing of the gay community were mean that for the first time in mobilised to prevent HIV and the history of the epidemic the Victorian AIDS Council we can all work toward came into being. ending HIV. VAC/GMHC ANNUAL REPORT 2013 l i INSIDE l STATEMENT OF PURPOSE 2 l PRESIDENT’S REPORT 3 l BOARD REPORT 4 l EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT 6 l 21 STORIES FROM VAC/GMHC 8 CANDLELIGHT VIGIL, 1986 WORLD AIDS DAY, 2012 l 30 YEAR HISTORY PROJECT 16 Then&Now l AWARDS 18 OUR VISION: A FUTURE WITHOUT HIV. FINANCIAL REPORTS A WORLD WHERE ALL SEXUALLY AND l VICTORIAN AIDS COUNCIL INC. 20 GENDER DIVERSE PEOPLE LIVE WITH DIGNITY AND EQUAL RIGHTS AND l GAY MEN’S HEALTH CENTRE INC. 25 PARTICIPATE FULLY IN OUR SOCIETY. l COMBINED VAC/GMHC FINANCIAL REPORT 28 ii l VAC/GMHC ANNUAL REPORT 2013 VAC/GMHC ANNUAL REPORT 2013 l 01 PHIL CARSWELL VAC PRESIDENT 1985 MICHAEL WILLIAMS: PRESIDENT 2012 VICTORIAN AIDS COUNCIL / GAY MEN’S HEALTH CENTRE ESTABLISHED IN 1983 Statement of Purpose The Victorian AIDS Council was Then&Now formed in 1983 as the central In 1983 Phil Carswell In 2012 Michael Williams part of the Victorian gay and became the first President of became the 18th President VAC.
    [Show full text]
  • Promoting the Health of Men Who Have Sex with Men
    PROMOTING THE HEALTH OF MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN WORLDWIDE: A TRAINING CURRICULUM FOR PROVIDERS “A young gay man who I know reported to us an experience at the hospital where he had gone to seek treatment for a potential sexually transmitted infection. The nurses literally laughed at him when he divulged his sexual orientation during sexual history taking. They called each other and made a spectacle of him. … Men who have sex with men stay away from services because they fear being ridiculed.” — 26-year-old gay man and HIV professional, sub-Saharan Africa Contents A. Overview of the MSMGF-JHU Curriculum h. Why talk about sexual health? i. The larger context B. Pilot Test with GALZ, Zimbabwe j. Sexual and reproductive rights of gay men and C. Technical Advisory Board & other MSM Acknowledgements k. Key points from the module D. Facilitator’s Guidelines Module III: Barriers to Health a. Conceptual Framework: Facilitators, barriers, E. Tools for Evaluating Your Training and critical enablers to service access Module I: Understanding Gay Men and Other i. Structural-level factors MSM ii. Community and interpersonal-level factors a. Who are MSM? iii. Individual-level factors b. Evidence for male-to-male sex b. What are stigma and discrimination c. Key terminology i. Stigma d. Myths concerning homosexuality ii. Discrimination e. Common sexual practices of gay men and iii. Homophobia other MSM c. Stigma within the gay community i. Penetrative anal sex d. HIV-related stigma ii. Other sexual practices e. Link between social discrimination and health f. Relationships among gay men and other MSM i.
    [Show full text]
  • Serosorting Among Men at Risk for HIV
    RESEARCH: Gay Men & Men Who Have Sex with Men & Women Serosorting among Men at Risk for HIV PIs: Willi McFarland PhD, Hong-Ha Truong PhD Project Description This study will obtain cross-sectional and longitudinal data on “HIV serosorting” among MSM in San Francisco. We broadly define HIV serosorting as diverse strategies to reduce HIV acquisition or transmission by intentionally selecting sexual partners of the same serostatus or by modifying sexual practices depending on the partner’s serostatus. We will recruit a community-based cohort of HIV- and HIV+ MSM using a probability- based time-location sampling method with longitudinal follow-up over the Internet. Significance The current phase of the HIV epidemic in San Francisco is complex with rising levels of overall unprotected anal sex (UAS) and STDs, yet stable HIV incidence. We hypothesize that HIV serosorting may explain these apparently contradictory findings; that is, increasing UAS with partners of the same HIV serostatus is leading to increases in STD incidence but not HIV incidence. While some evidence suggests serosorting may be increasing among MSM in San Francisco, many questions remain: How prevalent is serosorting as a deliberately adopted HIV prevention strategy in the MSM community? How do MSM identify partners of the same serostatus? What factors contribute to the success or failure of adhering to serosorting strategies? We need detailed and prospectively collected data in order to answer these questions and to assess the causal relationship between reported serosorting and actual risk for HIV. Accurate information is essential for 1) dispelling misperceptions of serosorting if it is not causally associated with reducing serodiscordant UAS, 2) increasing serosorting success if it is, or 3) framing serosorting in the context of risk reduction (but not elimination) if its role in reducing risk is mixed.
    [Show full text]
  • Serosorting May Decrease HIV Spread HIV Therapy by HEIDI SPLETE Ulation
    48 Infectious Diseases I NTERNAL M EDICINE N EWS • November 1, 2006 Holiday From Serosorting May Decrease HIV Spread HIV Therapy BY HEIDI SPLETE ulation. “This trend suggests that we off of annual HIV incidence in MSM lo- Senior Writer need to think of sexual risk in a new way,” cally from 4% in 1999 to 2.9% in 2003. Safe, Helpful said Dr. Grant of the University of Cali- The San Francisco report also noted WASHINGTON — Serosorting—the se- fornia, San Francisco. that receptive unprotected anal inter- BY FRAN LOWRY lection of sex practices based on a part- HIV patients’ choices of partners with course (UAI) among MSM decreased Orlando Bureau ner’s known or perceived HIV status—is the same HIV status for high-risk sex may from 1999 to 2003, which suggests that becoming more popular among men explain a plateau in HIV among men who HIV-negative MSM are selectively using G ENEVA — Giving HIV-infected pa- who have sex with men, Dr. Robert M. have sex with men (MSM) in recent years, condoms or taking other precautions if tients a holiday from their drugs may safe- Grant said at the Ryan White CARE Act Dr. Grant said. He cited the 2003 they know their partners are HIV positive. ly reduce the side effects and costs of clinical meeting on HIV treatment. HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Annual Report “We suspect it is a harm-reduction treatment, according to results from the Increased serosorting may reduce the from the San Francisco Department of strategy that is better than not serosort- Staccato study, a prospective, open-label, spread of new HIV infections in this pop- Public Health, which showed a tapering ing,” Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • HIV Serostatus Knowledge and Serostatus Disclosure with the Most
    Marcus et al. BMC Infectious Diseases (2017) 17:730 DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2814-x RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access HIV serostatus knowledge and serostatus disclosure with the most recent anal intercourse partner in a European MSM sample recruited in 13 cities: results from the Sialon-II study Ulrich Marcus1* , Susanne Barbara Schink1, Nigel Sherriff2, Anna-Marie Jones2,3, Lorenzo Gios4, Cinta Folch5,6, Torsten Berglund7, Christiana Nöstlinger8, Marta Niedźwiedzka-Stadnik9, Sonia F. Dias10, Ana F. Gama10, Emilia Naseva11, Ivailo Alexiev12, Danica Staneková13, Igor Toskin14, Daniela Pitigoi15,16, Alexandru Rafila17, Irena Klavs18, Massimo Mirandola19 and the Sialon II Network Abstract Background: Knowledge of HIV status can be important in reducing the risk of HIV exposure. In a European sample of men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM), we aimed to identify factors associated with HIV serostatus disclosure to the most recent anal intercourse (AI) partner. We also aimed to describe the impact of HIV serostatus disclosure on HIV exposure risks. Methods: During 2013 and 2014, 4901 participants were recruited for the bio-behavioural Sialon-II study in 13 European cities. Behavioural data were collected with a self-administered paper questionnaire. Biological specimens were tested for HIV antibodies. Factors associated with HIV serostatus disclosure with the most recent AI partner were examined using bivariate and multilevel multivariate logistic regression analysis. We also describe the role of serostatus disclosure for HIV exposure of the most recent AI partner. Results: Thirty-five percent (n = 1450) of the study participants reported mutual serostatus disclosure with their most recent AI partner or disclosed having HIV to their partner.
    [Show full text]
  • Resilience, Syndemic Factors, and Serosorting Behaviors Among HIV-Positive and HIV-Negative Substance-Using MSM Steven P
    AIDS Education and Prevention, 24(3), 193–205, 2012 © 2012 The Guilford Press Resilience, syndemic factors, and serosorting behaviors KurTz et al. RESILIENCE, SYNDEMIC FACTORS, AND SEROSORTING BEHAVIORS AMONG HIV-POSITIVE AND HIV-NEGATIVE SUBSTANCE-USING MSM Steven P. Kurtz, Mance E. Buttram, Hilary L. Surratt, and Ronald D. Stall Serosorting is commonly employed by MSM to reduce HIV risk. We hypothesize that MSM perceive serosorting to be effective, and that serosorting is predicted by resilience and inversely related to syndemic characteristics. Surveys included 504 substance-using MSM. Logistic regres- sion models examined syndemic and resilience predictors of serosorting, separately by serostatus. For HIV-positive men, positive coping behaviors (P = .015) and coping self-efficacy (P = .014) predicted higher odds, and cognitive escape behaviors (P = .003) lower odds, of serosorting. For HIV- negative men, social engagement (P = .03) and coping self-efficacy (P = .01) predicted higher odds, and severe mental distress (P = .001), victimization history (P = .007) and cognitive escape behaviors (P = .006) lower odds, of serosorting. HIV-negative serosorters reported lower perceptions of risk for infection than non-serosorters (P < .000). Although high risk HIV-negative men may perceive serosorting to be effective, their high rates of UAI and partner change render this an ineffective risk reduction approach. Relevant public health messages are urgently needed. The disproportionate impact of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) has been well documented over the past three decades (Wolitski, Valiserri, & Stall 2008). Current research among urban MSM emphasizes syndemic theory as a framework for understanding the production of health disparities (Bruce, Harper, & Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS, 2011; Stall, Friedman, & Catania, 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Serosorting and Strategic Positioning
    TECHNICAL BULLETIN SERIES Serosorting and Strategic Positioning What is serosorting? prevention does not yet have a definitive answer.22, 26, 27 • According to a World Health Organization (WHO) Serosorting is defined as “a person choosing a sexual partner systematic review that included 3 studies on serosort- known to be of the same HIV serostatus, often to engage in ing among MSM, serosorting was associated with a unprotected sex, in order to reduce the risk of acquiring or 79% increase in HIV transmission when compared with transmitting HIV.”1 It is a sexual risk management approach consistent condom use.17, 28-30 Serosorting has also been that has been identified among many groups of gay men and associated with a 61% increase in sexually transmit- other men who have sex with men (MSM), mostly in higher- ted infection (STI) transmission when compared with income countries.2-22 consistent condom use.30 • When serosorting was compared to no condom use, serosorting was associated with a 53% reduction in What is strategic positioning? HIV transmission and 14% reduction in STI transmis- sion.30 While evidence suggests that consistent condom Strategic positioning, also known as sero-positioning, is the use is a more effective means of HIV prevention than act of choosing a different sexual position or practice depend- serosorting, it appears that serosorting may be a viable ing on the serostatus of one’s partner.23 Typically, a person harm reduction strategy for those unwilling or unable living with HIV chooses to take the receptive position (“bot- to use condoms. This strategy depends on high cover- tom”) during unprotected anal sex with a partner believed to age rates of HIV testing, frequent utilization of HIV be HIV-negative.
    [Show full text]
  • HIV Prevention, Treatment, Care and Support for People Who Use Stimulant Drugs: Technical Guide
    HIV PREVENTION, TREATMENT, CARE AND SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE WHO USE STIMULANT DRUGS TECHNICAL GUIDE UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna HIV Prevention, Treatment, Care and Support for People Who Use Stimulant Drugs TECHNICAL GUIDE UNITED NATIONS Vienna, 2019 Recommended citation United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. HIV Prevention, Treatment, Care and Support for People Who Use Stimulant Drugs. Technical Guide UNODC; Vienna 2019. © United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2019 The content of this document does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) as well as of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), or their Member States. The description and classification of countries and territories in this publication and the arrangement of the material do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or regarding its economic system or degree of development. Publishing production: English, Publishing and Library Section, United Nations Office at Vienna. Contents Acknowledgements ..................................................................................1 Abbreviations and acronyms .........................................................................4 Definitions ..........................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Gay Men's Hiv Risk Reduction Practices: the Influence Of
    AIDS Education and Prevention, 26(3), 214–223, 2014 © 2014 The Guilford Press GAY MEN’S HIV RISK REDUCTION HOLT GAY MEN’S HIV RISK REDUCTION PRACTICES: THE INFLUENCE OF EPISTEMIC COMMUNITIES IN HIV SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH Martin Holt Since the mid-1980s, Australian social researchers have investigated the sexual practices of gay men, describing those that protect men from HIV or put them at risk of infection. Ground-breaking (and controversial) publica- tions have highlighted a variety of ways in which gay men protect them- selves and their partners, including condom use and non-condom-based risk reduction strategies. HIV social research in Australia has been heavily influenced by a distinctive network of experts or epistemic community with shared principles and beliefs and a commitment to influencing policy and practice. This epistemic community has articulated a ‘social public health’ view of HIV that emphasises partnership, agency, understanding practices and reflexivity. This approach has clashed with those of other epistemic communities, notably around ideas of relapse and unsafe sex. This article uses the examples of negotiated safety and serosorting to illustrate this Australian epistemic community’s approach to HIV risk reduction among gay men. INTRODUCTION Know your epidemic, know your response, is the strategy advocated by United Na- tions Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), to plan a national HIV response: garner research evidence to identify which groups are most at risk of HIV and why, de- velop targeted programs and interventions in collaboration with affected communi- ties, and monitor impact and effectiveness. However, even Michel Sidibé, UNAIDS Executive Director, acknowledges that generating knowledge of an HIV epidemic is insufficient for building an effective response; one also needs to understand the conditions under which research evidence affects policy and practice (Buse, Dickin- son, & Sidibé, 2008).
    [Show full text]