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

Negotiating Use of a Blood-Based, Dual HIV and Syphilis Test with Potential Sexual Partners Among a Sample of Cisgender Men and Transgender Women Who Have Sex with Men in New York City

Cisgender men who have sex with men (cMSM) and transgender women (TGW) are disproportionally burdened by HIV. Among these populations, HIV partner-testing is a highly acceptable harm reduction tool. Particularly, cMSM and TGW report a stronger preference for blood-based tests that include assays for multiple STIs. However, no existing research has explored how these populations negotiate blood-based testing with sexual partners. In the SMARTtest study, 48 sexually active cMSM and TGW took home dual, blood-based HIV/Syphilis kits for self- and partner-testing. After 3 months, they completed a follow-up assessment and in-depth interviews about their experiences initiating testing. Of the 42 responding participants, 27 (64%) reported that it had been "fairly" or "very easy" to raise the idea of testing with partners. Participants predominantly employed partner-conscious communication strategies, including framing the testing proposal as a mandatory, non-personal component of their participation in a research study, gradually incorporating testing mentions into discussions about sexual health, and using the kits to facilitate joint testing. Yet, 21 (44%) participants reported having sex with at least one partner they did not ask to test. Concern regarding partner reactions emerged as a significant barrier to discussing test use; similarly, many partners were averse to taking a blood-based test in the context of a casual sexual encounter. Nonetheless, these findings suggest that dual, blood-based HIV/STI rapid tests may represent acceptable harm reduction tools among similar populations of cMSM and TGW, particularly if future partner-testing research is broadened to consider key couples' dynamics that may impact test usage.

Development and Validation of the Power Imbalance in Couples Scale

Few researchers have quantitatively explored the relationship power-HIV risk nexus in same-sex male couples. We developed and validated the Power Imbalance in Couples Scale (PICS) to measure relationship power among men in same-sex, committed relationships and its association with sexual risk behaviors. We recruited three independent and diverse samples of male couples in the greater San Francisco and New York City metropolitan areas and conducted qualitative interviews (N1 = 96) to inform item development, followed by two quantitative surveys (N2 = 341; N3 = 434) to assess the construct, predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity of the PICS. Exploratory factor analysis of the first survey's data yielded four factors-overtly controlling partner, supportive partner, conflict avoidant actor, and overtly controlling actor-that accounted for more than 50% of the shared variance among the PICS items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the second survey's data supported these four factors: χ²(1823) = 2493.40, p < .001; CFI = .96, RMSEA = .03 and WRMR = 1.33. Strong interfactor correlations suggested the presence of a higher-order general perception of power imbalance factor; a higher-order factor CFA model was comparable in fit to the correlated lower-order factors' CFA: χ²(2) = 2.00, p = .37. Internal reliability of the PICS scale was strong: α = .94. Men perceiving greater power imbalances in their relationships had higher odds of engaging in condomless anal intercourse with outside partners of discordant or unknown HIV status (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.01-1.60; p = .04). The PICS is an important contribution to measuring relationship power imbalance and its sequelae among male couples; it is applicable to research on relationships, sexuality, couples, and HIV prevention.

Sexual Agreements: A Scoping Review of Measurement, Prevalence and Links to Health Outcomes

A sexual agreement is a mutual understanding between two partners regarding sexual and relational behaviors both within and outside of their relationship. Sexual agreements have been central to research and programming efforts around HIV prevention, primarily for male couples. A comprehensive scoping review of the primary literature on sexual agreements, including negotiated safety, was performed to identify what is known about sexual agreements among couples (n = 66). Results indicate a wide range of prevalence of agreements and measurements used to characterize sexual agreements. Findings also report associations between sexual agreements and health and relational outcomes. Several knowledge gaps were identified; specifically, the need to expand sexual agreements research beyond MSM populations and the need to better understand agreement breaks, break disclosure, and how variation in agreement categorization may impact reported prevalence. This review demonstrates the importance of broadening the evidence-base of sexual agreements research and programmatic focus.

Relationship Power Among Same-Sex Male Couples in New York and San Francisco: Laying the Groundwork for Sexual Risk Reduction Interventions Focused on Interpersonal Power

Research is clear that power differentials between women and men shape women's human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risks; however, little research has attempted to examine power differentials within same-sex male (SSM) couples and whether these influence sexual risk outcomes. To produce the first quantitative scale that measures power in SSM relationships, the current work was a Phase 1 qualitative study that sought to understand domains of relationship power and how power operated in the relationship among 48 Black, White, and interracial (Black-White) SSM couples recruited from San Francisco and New York. Interview domains were focused on definitions of power and perceptions of how power operated in the relationship. Findings revealed that couples described power in three key ways: as power exerted over a partner through decision-making dominance and relationship control; as power to accomplish goals through personal agency; and as couple-level power. In addition, men described ways that decision-making dominance and relationship control could be enacted in the relationship-through structural resources, emotional and sexual influence, and gender norm expectations. We discuss the implications of these findings for sexual risks and HIV care and treatment with SSM couples that are focused on closing gaps in power.