What is to be done?

The Role of Community Health Workers Within the Continuum of Services for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, and Other STIs Amongst Men Who Have Sex with Men in Europe

Little is known about Community Health Workers (CHWs) who work in non-clinical settings to provide sexual health support around HIV, viral hepatitis, and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to men who have sex with men (MSM) in Europe and neighbouring countries. This article describes for the first time, who CHWs are, and how they contribute to the continuum of services for HIV, viral hepatitis, and other STIs amongst MSM. The first European Community Health Worker Online Survey (ECHOES) developed in the framework of the EU-funded ESTICOM project (www.esticom.eu), was available in 16 languages (October 2017-January 2018). Amongst the 1035 persons aged 18 and older reporting CHW activities in the previous 12 months, 28.2% were women, 30.7% were volunteers, 59.2% were men self-defining as gay/homosexual, bisexual or queer (‘peer CHWs’), and most CHWs worked/volunteered in private not-for-profit organisations (86.4%). CHWs involvement in the continuum of services for HIV, viral hepatitis and other STIs was as follows: primary prevention (88.6%), consultation and counselling (58.0%), testing provision (50.6%), linkage to care (49.8%), and treatment and support activities (51.3%). CHWs were also involved in cross-cutting activities such as developing interventions, advocacy, and engaging in research (46.3%). CHWs as a public health workforce contribute to all steps of the continuum of services for HIV, viral hepatitis, and other STIs amongst MSM in Europe. National governments should recognise and support CHWs better in order to make their activities more visible and sustainable, and increase their impact on the continuum of services.

Strategies to prevent HIV transmission to serodiscordant couples

INTRODUCTION

The use antiretroviral reduces the sexual transmission of HIV, expanding interventions for serodiscordant couples.

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to review the use of antiretroviral and other prevention interventions among serodiscordant couples and to analyze its use in Brazil.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed through the MEDLINE database and bases included in the Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde.

RESULTS

The articles recovered exhibit four main strategies: (1) condom; (2) reduction of risks in sexual practices; (3) use of antiretrovirals, particularly early initiation of antiretroviral therapy (TASP) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP); (4) risk reduction in reproduction.

DISCUSSION

TASP is highly effective in reducing sexual transmission, PrEP was tested in serodiscordant couples and both reduce the sexual transmission risk in different sexual practices, enabling individualized prevention strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

When used in combination, antiretrovirals and sexual practices with condoms offer greater efficacy than any single strategy. The combined use of new and old strategies allows us to build a prevention policy for all.

Perceptions and Definitions of Power Within the Context of HIV-Negative Male Couples' Relationships

Examining dynamics within relationships is critical for development of effective HIV prevention interventions for male couples. The dynamic of power has received little attention in research with male couples, though power has been reported to affect HIV risk among heterosexual couples. To help address this knowledge gap, the present cross-sectional analysis used mixed methods with dyadic data from 142 HIV-negative male couples to (1) assess partnered men's perception of who has the most power in their relationship and why, (2) examine whether partners concur about who has the most power and their reasoning for this selection, and (3) assess whether male couples' concurrence about who has the most power is associated with their engagement of condomless anal sex within and/or outside the relationship, type of relationship, and aspects of their sexual agreement. Individual- and couple-level responses about who has the most power were quantitatively assessed, whereas for why, their responses were coded qualitatively. Fifty-six percent of couples concurred about who has the most power in their relationship and of these, many said it was equal. Regarding why, themes of responses ranged from "compromise" and "shared responsibility" for those who concurred about who has the most power versus "dominant/compliant personality" and "money" among the couples who disagreed about who has the most power in their relationship. Concordance about who has the most power was only associated with condomless anal sex within the relationship. Further research is warranted to examine how power may affect other dynamics of male couples' relationships and risk-related behaviors.

Differences in Relationship Characteristics Between HIV-Negative Male Couples Who Used and Did Not Use Substances with Sex

Although substance use is linked to HIV seroconversion, little is known about male couples substance use with sex. The present study sought to: describe whether neither, one, or both partners in the couple used a particular substance with sex within or outside their relationship; assess, by substance type used with sex, whether relationship factors differed between these groups of couples. Dyadic data from 83 behaviorally non-monogamous HIV-negative male couples were used with multinomial regression models. Those who used with sex within the relationship varied by substance type; outside the relationship, most only had one partner who used with sex. Couples with one or both partners who used substances with sex within or outside the relationship were more likely to have higher commitment to their relationship yet less likely to trust their main partner; mixed results were found regarding communication. Further research is warranted toward the need for preventive intervention development.

HIV Serosorting, Status Disclosure, and Strategic Positioning Among Highly Sexually Active Gay and Bisexual Men

Researchers have identified harm reduction strategies that gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) use to reduce HIV transmission--including serosorting, status disclosure, and strategic positioning. We report on patterns of these behaviors among 376 highly sexually active (i.e., 9+partners, <90 days) GBMSM: mean age of 37, 49.5% men of color, 87.8% gay identified, 57.5% college educated. We found evidence that many men engaged in serosorting, status disclosure, and strategic positioning; however, rates varied based on the participant's HIV status. HIV-positive and HIV-negative men both engaged in sex with men of similar status more often than they engaged in sex with men known to be a different HIV status (i.e., serosorting). However, HIV-negative men disclosed their HIV-status with about half of their partners, whereas HIV-positive participants disclosed with only about one-third. With regard to strategic positioning, HIV-positive participants were the receptive partner about half the time with their HIV-negative partners and with their HIV-positive partners. In contrast, strategic positioning was very common among HIV-negative participants-they rarely bottomed with HIV-positive partners, bottomed about one-third of the time with status-unknown partners, and 42% of the time (on average) with HIV-negative partners. Highly sexually active GBMSM are a critical population in which to both investigate HIV prevention strategies as well as develop effective intervention programs. Providers and clinicians might be well served to include a wide range of behavioral harm reduction strategies in addition to condom use and biomedical approaches to reduce onward HIV transmission.

Relationship characteristics differ based on use of substances with sex among an urban internet sample of HIV-discordant and HIV-positive male couples

Previous research with men who have sex with men (MSM) has found that substance use with sex is strongly associated with HIV acquisition and poor adherence to HIV treatments. Although some studies have assessed male couples' use of substances with unprotected anal sex, little is known on whether differences in their relationship dynamics are associated with their usage. Current HIV prevention initiatives underscore the importance of studying male couples' relationship dynamics. Using dyadic data from 28 HIV-positive and 58 HIV-discordant male couples, this analysis sought to: (1) describe, by substance type, whether neither, one, or both partners in the couple used a particular substance with sex within their relationship or outside of the relationship, respectively, and (2) assess, by substance type, whether relationship characteristic differences existed between these three groups of couples with respect to substance use with sex within and outside the relationship. Data from 86 dyads came from a cross-sectional, Internet study. Multivariate multinomial regression models were employed to achieve the aims. Except for alcohol, most did not use substances with sex. Within the relationship, those who used with sex varied by substance type; outside the relationship, most couples had only one partner who used with sex regardless of substance type. Several relationship characteristic differences were noted between the groups of couples. Within the relationship, marijuana and erectile dysfunction medication (EDM) use with sex was associated with having less tangible resources; for outside the relationship, these were associated with perceiving to have greater quality of alternatives. In general, amyl nitrates and party drug use with sex were associated with viewing the main partner as being less dependable for trustworthiness. Marijuana and party drug use with sex within the relationship and EDM use with sex outside the relationship were negatively associated with being able to communicate constructively. Mixed results were noted for relationship satisfaction. Additional research is urgently needed for prevention and promotion of healthy relationships for male couples who use substances with sex.

Differences in Gay Male Couples' Use of Drugs and Alcohol With Sex by Relationship HIV Status

Prior studies with men who have sex with men have documented a strong association between substance use with sex and risk for acquisition of HIV. However, few studies have been conducted about gay male couples' use of substances with sex, despite the fact that between one third and two thirds of men who have sex with men acquire HIV from their relationship partners. The present study sought to (1) describe whether one or both partners in the male couple uses substances with sex-by substance type-within and/or outside of their relationship, and (2) assess whether differences exist in those who use substances with sex within and outside the relationship by the couples' HIV status. Dyadic data for this analysis were collected in the United States from a nation-wide cross-sectional Internet study about male couples' relationships and behaviors. Couple-level descriptive and comparative analyses were employed with 361 male couples. Except for alcohol, most couples did not use substances with sex. Of those who did, rates of who used it with sex and substance type within the relationship varied; most couples only had one partner who used substances with sex outside the relationship. Significantly higher proportions of concordantly HIV-negative and HIV-positive couples had both partners who used substances (all types) with sex within their relationship over discordant couples. Most couples had one partner who used outside the relationship; only marijuana and erectile dysfunction medication use with sex significantly differed by couples' HIV status. Findings indicate the need to conduct additional research for prevention development.

Gay male couples' attitudes toward using couples-based voluntary HIV counseling and testing

Many men who have sex with men acquire HIV from their primary male partners while in a relationship. Studies with gay couples have demonstrated that relationship characteristics and testing behaviors are important to examine for HIV prevention. Recently, couples-based voluntary HIV counseling and testing (CVCT) has become available to male couples throughout the U.S. However, HIV-negative couples' attitudes toward using CVCT and how their relationship characteristics may affect their use of CVCT remain largely unknown. This information is particularly relevant for organizations that offer CVCT. To assess couples' attitudes, and associated factors toward using CVCT, a cross-sectional study design was used with a novel Internet-based recruitment method to collect dyadic data from a national sample of 275 HIV-negative gay couples. Multivariate multilevel modeling was used to identify factors associated with differences between and within couples about their attitudes towards using CVCT. Findings revealed that couples were "somewhat" to "very likely" to use CVCT. More positive attitudes toward using CVCT were associated with couples who had higher levels of relationship satisfaction and commitment toward their sexual agreement and among those who had at least one partner having had sex outside of the relationship. Less positive attitude toward using CVCT was associated with couples who had higher levels of trust toward their partners being dependable. Differences within couples, including age between partners, whether sex had occurred outside of the relationship, and value toward a sexual agreement also affected their attitudes toward using CVCT. Providing additional testing methods may help HIV-negative gay couples better manage their HIV risk.

Actor-partner effects of demographic and relationship factors associated with HIV risk within gay male couples

Recent research has investigated the association of relationship factors and dynamics with sexual behaviors and HIV risk among gay male couples. However, few studies with gay male couples have used the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model framework to examine whether factors influence an individual and his partner's sexual risk behaviors. None of these studies analyzed whether relationship factors had influenced the sexual risk behaviors of both partners within the couple. Our cross-sectional study used dyadic data from 142 gay male couples to assess actor-partner effects of relationship commitment, trust, and investment in one's sexual agreement for HIV risk. Multilevel modeling was used to examine which actor-partner effects of these factors were predictive of individuals and their partners having had UAI within and outside the relationship. Results indicated that participants' likelihood of having had UAI within and outside of the relationship significantly decreased with: (1) actor effects of value in and commitment to a sexual agreement, and quality of alternatives to the relationship and (2) partner effects of participant's age, dependability of trust, quality of alternatives to the relationship, and investment of relationship commitment. No significant actor-partner effects were detected for having had UAI within the relationship. Our findings suggest that future HIV prevention strategies should take into account how relationship factors influence an individual and his main partners' sexual risk behaviors and in turn, the couple's risk for HIV. However, more research is needed to examine how actor-partner effects of relationship factors influence a variety of sexual risk behaviors within gay male couples.

HIV-negative and HIV-discordant gay male couples' use of HIV risk-reduction strategies: differences by partner type and couples' HIV-status

Previous research has found that gay men and other men who have sex with men have adopted a variety of HIV risk-reduction strategies to engage in unprotected anal intercourse (UAI). However, whether gay male couples' use these strategies within and out of their relationships remains unknown. The present national cross-sectional study collected dyadic data from an online sample of 275 HIV-negative and 58 discordant gay male couples to assess their use of these strategies, and whether their use of these strategies had differed by partner type and couples' HIV-status. The sample used a variety of risk-reduction strategies for UAI. Some differences and patterns by partner type and couples' HIV-status were detected about men's use of these strategies. Findings indicate the need to bolster HIV prevention and education with gay male couples about their use of these strategies within and outside of their relationships.

Characteristics and allowed behaviors of gay male couples' sexual agreements

Research has shown that gay male couples' sexual agreements may affect their risk for HIV. Few U.S. studies have collected dyadic data nationally from gay male couples to assess what sexual behaviors they allow to occur by agreement type and the sequence of when certain behaviors occur within their relationships. In our cross-sectional study, dyadic data from a convenience sample of 361 male couples were collected electronically throughout the United States by using paid Facebook ads. Findings revealed that couples discussed their HIV status before having unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) but established their agreement some time after having UAI. About half of the couples (N = 207) concurred about having an agreement. Among these couples, 58% concurred about explicitly discussing their agreement, 84% concurred about having the same type of agreement, and 54% had both men adhering to it. A variety of sexual behaviors were endorsed and varied by agreement type. Concordance about aspects of couples' agreements varied, suggesting the need to engage couples to be more explicit and detailed when establishing and communicating about their agreements. The allowed behaviors and primary reasons for establishing and breaking sexual agreements further highlight the need to bolster HIV prevention for gay male couples.

A reanalysis of a behavioral intervention to prevent incident HIV infections: including indirect effects in modeling outcomes of Project EXPLORE

Project EXPLORE - a large-scale, behavioral intervention tested among men who have sex with men (MSM) at-risk for HIV infection - was generally deemed as ineffective in reducing HIV incidence. Using novel and more precise data analytic techniques we reanalyzed Project EXPLORE by including both direct and indirect paths of intervention effects. Data from 4296 HIV-negative MSM who participated in Project EXPLORE, which included 10 sessions of behavioral risk reduction counseling completed from 1999 to 2005, were included in the analysis. We reanalyzed the data to include parameters that estimate the over-time effects of the intervention on unprotected anal (UA) sex and the over-time effects of the intervention on HIV status mediated by UA sex simultaneously in a single model. We found the indirect effect of intervention on HIV infection through UA sex to be statistically significant up through 12-month post-intervention, OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.72-0.95. Furthermore, the intervention significantly reduced UA sex up through 18-month post-intervention, OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.63-0.99. Our results reveal effects not tested in the original model that offer new insight into the effectiveness of a behavioral intervention for reducing HIV incidence. Project EXPLORE demonstrated that when tested against an evidence-based, effective control condition can result in reductions in rates of HIV acquisition at one year follow-up. Findings highlight the critical role of addressing behavioral risk reduction counseling in HIV prevention.

Relationship factors associated with HIV risk among a sample of gay male couples

More HIV prevention research is needed to better understand how relationship factors may affect sexual risk behaviors among gay male couples. Our cross-sectional study collected dyadic data from 144 gay male couples to examine which relationship factors and characteristics were associated with men having UAI with a secondary sex partner. We targeted male couples by using a variety of recruitment strategies. Multilevel random-effects logistic regression modeling was used to examine which factors were predictive of men in gay couples who had UAI with a secondary sex partner. Analyses revealed that men were less likely to have had UAI with a secondary sex partner if they reported being in a strictly monogamous relationship, receiving an HIV test within the previous 3 months, and being committed to their sexual agreement. Future HIV prevention interventions must consider how relationship factors may influence sexual risk behaviors among gay male couples.

Sexual protection behavior in HIV-positive gay men: testing a modified information-motivation-behavioral skills model

This study on determinants of sexual protection behavior among HIV-positive gay men used the empirically tested information-motivation-behavioral skills (IMB) model. HIV-specific variables were added to the model to determine factors decisive for condom use with steady and casual partners. Data were collected using an anonymous, standardized self-administered questionnaire. Study participants were recruited at HIV outpatient clinics associated with the Eurosupport Study Group and the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. To identify factors associated with condom use, backward elimination regression analyses were performed. Overall, 838 HIV-infected gay men from 14 European countries were included in this analysis. About 53% of them reported at least one sexual contact with a steady partner; 62.5% had sex with a casual partner during the last 6 months. Forty-three percent always used condoms with steady partners and 44% with casual partners. High self-efficacy and subjective norms in favor of condom-use were associated with increased condom use with casual and steady partners, whereas feeling depressed was associated with decreased condom use with casual partners. Condoms were used less often with HIV-positive partners. Self-efficacy as an important behavioral skill to perform protection behavior was influenced by lower perceived vulnerability, higher subjective norms, and more positive safer sex attitudes. The IMB-model constructs appeared to be valid; however, not all the model predictors could be determined as hypothesized. Besides the original IMB constructs, HIV-specific variables, including sexual partners' serostatus and mental health, explained condom use. Such factors should be considered in clinical interventions to promote "positive prevention."

Behavioural strategies to reduce HIV transmission: how to make them work better

This paper makes five key points. First is that the aggregate effect of radical and sustained behavioural changes in a sufficient number of individuals potentially at risk is needed for successful reductions in HIV transmission. Second, combination prevention is essential since HIV prevention is neither simple nor simplistic. Reductions in HIV transmission need widespread and sustained efforts, and a mix of communication channels to disseminate messages to motivate people to engage in a range of options to reduce risk. Third, prevention programmes can do better. The effect of behavioural strategies could be increased by aiming for many goals (eg, delay in onset of first intercourse, reduction in number of sexual partners, increases in condom use, etc) that are achieved by use of multilevel approaches (eg, couples, families, social and sexual networks, institutions, and entire communities) with populations both uninfected and infected with HIV. Fourth, prevention science can do better. Interventions derived from behavioural science have a role in overall HIV-prevention efforts, but they are insufficient when used by themselves to produce substantial and lasting reductions in HIV transmission between individuals or in entire communities. Fifth, we need to get the simple things right. The fundamentals of HIV prevention need to be agreed upon, funded, implemented, measured, and achieved. That, presently, is not the case.