Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Relationship Dynamics and Partner Beliefs About Viral Suppression: A Longitudinal Study of Male Couples Living with HIV/AIDS (The Duo Project)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 04 July 2016

Abstract

Accurate beliefs about partners’ viral suppression are important for HIV prevention and care. We fit multilevel mixed effects logistic regression models to examine associations between partners’ viral suppression beliefs and objective HIV RNA viral load tests, and whether relationship dynamics were associated with accurate viral suppression beliefs over time. Male couples (N = 266 couples) with at least one HIV-positive partner on antiretroviral therapy completed five assessments over 2 years. Half of the 407 HIV-positive partners were virally suppressed. Of the 40 % who had inaccurate viral load beliefs, 80 % assumed their partner was suppressed. The odds of having accurate viral load beliefs decreased over time (OR = 0.83; p = 0.042). Within-couple differences in dyadic adjustment (OR = 0.66; p < 0.01) and commitment (OR = 0.82; p = 0.022) were negatively associated with accurate viral load beliefs. Beliefs about a partner’s viral load may factor into sexual decision-making and social support. Couple-based approaches are warranted to improve knowledge of partners’ viral load.

Resumen

Creencias precisas de la supresión viral de la pareja de una persona son importantes para la prevención y atención del VIH. Nos usamos una regresión logística multinivel modelos de efectos mixtos para examinar las asociaciones entre las creencias acerca de la supresión viral y pruebas objetivas de la carga viral de ARN del VIH de la pareja de una persona, y si dinámica de la relación se asociaron con preciso las creencias supresión viral con el tiempo. Pareja hombres (N = 266 parejas) con al menos una pareja con VIH en terapia antirretroviral completado cinco evaluaciones de más de dos años. La mitad de las 407 parejas con VIH había conseguido una supresión viral. Del 40 % que tenía creencias inexactas de carga viral, el 80 % asume su pareja fue suprimida. Dentro de parejas diferencias de ajuste diádico (OR = 0.66; p < 0.01) y compromiso (OR = 0.82; p = 0.022) se asociaron negativamente con las carga viral creencias. Las creencias sobre la carga viral de la pareja pueden tener en cuenta en la toma de decisiones sexuales y el apoyo social. Las probabilidades de tener creencias precisas de carga viral disminuyó con el tiempo (OR = 0.83; p = 0.042). Los enfoques que utilizan las parejas están justificadas y puedan mejorar el conocimiento de la carga viral de la pareja de una persona.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Siedner MJ, Musinguzi N, Tsai AC, et al. Treatment as long-term prevention: sustained reduction in HIV sexual transmission risk with use of antiretroviral therapy in rural Uganda. AIDS. 2014;28:267–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Cohen M, Chen Y, McCauley M, et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(6):493–505.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Rodger A, Bruun T, Cambiano V, et al. HIV transmission risk through condomless sex If HIV+ partner on suppressive ART: PARTNER Study. Conference on retroviruses and opportunistic infections (CROI) on March 3–6, 2014.

  4. van den Boom W, Davidovich U, Witlox R, Stolte I. Frequent use of viral sorting by HIV-positive MSM: The consideration of viral load when deciding to engage in unprotected anal intercourse with HIV-positive and HIV-negative partners. Presented at 10th Annual Aids Impact conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 2011.

  5. Mitchell JW. HIV-negative and HIV-discordant gay male couples’ use of HIV Risk-reduction strategies: differences by partner type and couples’ HIV-status. AIDS Behav. 2013;17:1557–69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Horvath KJ, Smolenski D, Iantaffi A, Grey JA, Rosser BRS. Discussions of viral load in negotiating sexual episodes with primary and casual partners among men who have sex with men. AIDS Care. 2012;24(8):1052–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Prestage G, Mao L, Kippax S, et al. Use of viral load to negotiate condom use among gay men in Sydney, Australia. AIDS Behav. 2009;13:645–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Van de Ven P, Mao L, Fogarty A, et al. Undetectable viral load is associated with sexual risk taking in HIV serodiscordant gay couples in Sydney. AIDS. 2005;19:179–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Crepaz N, Hart TA, Marks G. Highly active antiretroviral therapy and sexual risk behavior: a meta-analytic review. JAMA. 2004;292:224–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zablotska IB, Imrie J, Prestage G, et al. Gay men’s current practice of HIV seroconcordant unprotected anal intercourse: serosorting or seroguessing? AIDS Care. 2009;21:501–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Montgomery BM. The form and function of quality communication in marriage. Fam Relat. 1981;30:21–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Anglewicz PA, Bignami-Van Assche S, Clark S, Mkandawire J. HIV risk among currently married couples in rural Malawi: what do spouses know about each other? AIDS Behav. 2008;14(1):103–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Anglewicz P, Chintsanya J. Disclosure of HIV status between spouses in rural Malawi. AIDS Care. 2011;23(8):998–1005.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Katz DA, Kiarie JN, John-Stewart GC, et al. HIV testing men in the antenatal setting: understanding male non-disclosure. Int J STD AIDS. 2009;20(11):765–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Conroy AA, Wong LH. How reliable are self-reports of HIV status disclosure? Evidence from couples in Malawi. Soc Sci Med. 2015;144:28–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Meichenbaum D, Turk DC. Facilitating treatment adherence: a practitioner’s guidebook. New York: Plenum Press; 1987.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. Bekele T, Rourke SB, Tucker R, et al. Direct and indirect effects of perceived social support on health-related quality of life in persons living with HIV/AIDS. AIDS Care. 2013;25(3):337–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Huynh AK, Kinsler JJ, Cunningham WE, Sayles JN. The role of mental health in mediating the relationship between social support and optimal ART adherence. AIDS Care. 2013;25(9):1179–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Yeji F, Klipstein-Grobusch K, Newell ML, et al. Are social support and HIV coping strategies associated with lower depression in adults on antiretroviral treatment? Evidence from rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. AIDS Care. 2014;26(12):1482–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ammassari A, Trotta MP, Murri R, Castelli F, Narciso P, Noto P, et al. Correlates and predictors of adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy: overview of published literature. JAIDS. 2002;31:S123–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gonzalez JS, Penedo FJ, Antoni MH, et al. Social support, positive states of mind, and HIV treatment adherence in men and women living with HIV/AIDS. Health Psychol. 2004;23(4):413.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Catz SL, Kelly JA, Bogart LM, Benotsch EG, McAuliffe TL. Patterns, correlates, and barriers to medication adherence among persons prescribed new treatments for HIV disease. Health Psychol. 2000;19(2):124.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Leserman J, Perkins DO, Evans DL. Coping with the threat of AIDS: the role of social support. Am J Psychiatry. 1992;149:1514.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wrubel J, Stumbo S, Johnson MO. Antiretroviral medication support practices among partners of men who have sex with men: a qualitative study. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2008;22(11):851–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Wrubel J, Stumbo S, Johnson MO. Male same-sex couple dynamics and received social support for HIV medication adherence. J Soc Pers Relatsh. 2010;27(4):553–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hamilton MM, Razzano LA, Martin NB. The relationship between type and quality of social support and HIV medication adherence. J HIV/AIDS Soc Serv. 2007;6(1–2):39–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Davies G, Koenig LJ, Stratford D, Palmore M, Bush T, Golde M, et al. Overview and implementation of an intervention to prevent adherence failure among HIV-infected adults initiating antiretroviral therapy: lessons learned from Project HEART. AIDS Care. 2006;18:895–903.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Remien RH, Stirratt MJ, Dolezal C, et al. Couple-focused support to improve HIV medication adherence: a randomized controlled trial. AIDS. 2005;19:807–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lewis MA, McBride CM, Pollak KI, et al. Understanding health behavior change among couples: an interdependence and communal coping approach. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:1369–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rusbult C, Lange PMAV. Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54(54):351–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Karney BR, Hops H, Redding CA, et al. A framework for incorporating dyads in models of HIV-prevention. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(2):189–203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Darbes LA, Chakravarty D, Neilands TB, Beougher SC, Hoff CC. Sexual risk for HIV among gay male couples: a longitudinal study of the impact of relationship dynamics. Arch Sex Behav. 2014;43(1):47–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Mitchell JW, Champeau D, Harvey SM. Actor-partner effects of demographic and relationship factors associated with HIV risk within gay male couples. Arch Sex Behav. 2013;42(7):1337–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mitchell JW, Harvey SM, Champeau D, Seal DW. Relationship factors associated with HIV risk among a sample of gay male couples. AIDS Behav. 2012;16:404–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Hoff CC, Chakravarty D, Beougher SC, Neilands TB, Darbes L. Relationship characteristics associated with sexual risk behavior among MSM in committed relationships. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2012;26(12):738–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Gomez AM, Beougher SC, Chakravarty D, Neilands TB, Mandic CG, Darbes LA, Hoff CC. Relationship dynamics as predictors of broken agreements about outside sexual partners: implications for HIV prevention among gay couples. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(6):1584–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mitchell JW, Harvey SM, Champeau D, Moskowitz DA, Seal DW. Relationship factors associated with gay male couples’ concordance on aspects of their sexual agreements: establishment, type, and adherence. AIDS Behav. 2012;16:1560–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Johnson MO, Dilworth SE, Taylor JM, et al. Primary relationships, HIV treatment adherence, and virologic control. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(6):1511–21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Turner C, Ku L, Rogers S, et al. Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science. 1998;280(5365):867–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Funk JL, Rogge RD. Testing the ruler with item response theory: increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couples satisfaction index. J Fam Psychol. 2007;21(4):572–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sabourin S, Valois P, Lussier Y. Development and validation of a brief version of the dyadic adjustment scale with a nonparametric item analysis model. Psycholol Assess. 2005;17(1):15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Spanier G. Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. J Marriage Fam. 1976;38:15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kurdek L. Assessing multiple determinants of relationship commitment in cohabitating gay, cohabitating lesbian, dating heterosexual, and married heterosexual couples. Fam Relat. 1995;44:261–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Christensen A, Shenk JL. Communication, conflict, and psychological distance in nondistressed, clinic, and divorcing couples. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59(3):458–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Allison P. Fixed effects regression methods for longitudinal data using SAS. Cary: SAS Institute; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Neuhaus JM, Kalbfleisch JD. Between- and within-cluster covariate effects in the analysis of clustered data.”. Biometrics. 1998;54(2):638–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL. Dyadic data analysis. New York: The Guilford Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Petersen T. Analyzing panel data: fixed- and random-effects models. In: Hardy M, Bryman A, editors. Handbook of data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2004. p. 331–45.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach (second edition). New York: Springer; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Harrell FE. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer; 2001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Agresti A, Finlay B. Statistical methods for the social sciences. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hox JJ. Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Carrico A, Woolf-King S, Neilands T, Dilworth S, Johnson M. Stimulant use and HIV disease management among men in same-sex relationships. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;139:174–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Kalichman SC, Eaton L, Cain D, et al. Changes in HIV treatment beliefs and sexual risk behaviors among gay and bisexual men. Health Psychol. 2007;26(5):650–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kalichman SC, Cherry C, Kalichman MO, et al. Sexual behaviors and transmission risks among people living with HIV: beliefs, perceptions, and challenges to using treatments as prevention. Arch Sex Behav. 2015. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0559-4.

  56. Beougher S, Chakravarty D, Garcia C, et al. Risks worth taking: safety agreements among discordant gay couples. AIDS Care. 2012;24(9):1071–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Gamarel K, Comfort M, Wood T, Neilands T, Johnson M. A qualitative analysis of male couples coping with HIV: disentangling the “we.” J Health Psychol. 2015. doi:10.1177/1359105315571975.

  58. Gamarel K, Revenson T. Dyadic adaptation to chronic illness: The importance of considering context in understanding couples’ resilience. In: Skerrett K, Fergus K, editors. Couples resilience: emerging perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer; 2015. p. 83–105.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  59. van den Boom W, Stolte I, Sandfort T, Davidovich U. Serosorting and sexual risk behaviour according to different casual partnership types among MSM: the study of one-night stands and sex buddies. AIDS Care. 2011;24(2):167–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Mitchell JW, Garcia L, Champeau D, Harvey SM, Petroll AE. HIV-negative seroconcordant gay male couples’ attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control for planned condom use within and outside of their relationships. Int J Sex Health. 2012;24(4):239–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Dodge B, Herbenick D, Tsung-Chieh F, et al. Sexual behaviors of U.S. men by self-identified sexual orientation: results From the 2012 national survey of sexual health and behavior. J Sex Med. 2016;13(4):637–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Sullivan PS, Salazar L, Buchbinder S, Sanchez TH. Estimating the proportion of HIV transmissions from main sex partners among men who have sex with men in five US cities. AIDS. 2009;23:1153–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Conroy AA, McGrath N, Van Rooyen H, et al. Power and the association with relationship quality in south african couples: implications for HIV/AIDS interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2016;153:1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Ribaudo H, Lennox J, Currier J, et al.Virologic failure endpoint definition in clinical trials: Is using HIV-1 RNA threshold <200 copies/mL better than <50 copies/mL? An analysis of ACTG studies Paper presented at the 16th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infection; 2009 Montreal, Canada.

  65. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration. HIV/AIDS Bureau performance measures: HIV viral load suppression. http://hab.hrsa.gov/deliverhivaidscare/coremeasures.pdf. 2013.

  66. Russell R. City endorses new policy for treatment of HIV. The New York Times. 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/us/04sftreatment.html. Accessed 4 Feb 2016.

  67. SFDPH. HIV epidemiology annual report. San Francisco: San Francisco Department of Public Health; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Schwarcz S, Hsu LC, Scheer S. Disparities and trends in viral suppression during a transition to a “test and treat” approach to the HIV epidemic, San Francisco, 2008–2012. JAIDS. 2015;70:529–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. UNAIDS. 90-90-90: an ambitious treatment target to help end the AIDS epidemic. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Burton J, Darbes LA, Operario D. Couples-focused behavioral interventions for prevention of HIV: systematic review of the state of evidence. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the men who participated in the study and the tireless efforts of the research staff. We would also like to thank John Sauceda for translation of the abstract into Spanish.

Funding

This study was funded by grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR010187), the National Institute of Drug Abuse (K24DA037034), and the National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH019105; T32MH078788).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California - San Francisco, 550 16th Street 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Amy A. Conroy, Torsten B. Neilands, Samantha E. Dilworth & Mallory O. Johnson

  2. Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

    Kristi E. Gamarel

  3. Department of Health Behavior and Biological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Lynae A. Darbes

Authors
  1. Amy A. Conroy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristi E. Gamarel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Torsten B. Neilands
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Samantha E. Dilworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lynae A. Darbes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mallory O. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy A. Conroy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Amy Conroy declares no conflict of interest. Kristi Gamarel declares no conflict of interest. Torsten Neilands declares no conflict of interest. Samantha Dilworth declares no conflict of interest. Lynae Darbes declares no conflict of interest. Mallory Johnson declares no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Conroy, A.A., Gamarel, K.E., Neilands, T.B. et al. Relationship Dynamics and Partner Beliefs About Viral Suppression: A Longitudinal Study of Male Couples Living with HIV/AIDS (The Duo Project). AIDS Behav 20, 1572–1583 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1423-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1423-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation