AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 334–339 | Cite as

Gap between Consecutive Sexual Partnerships and Sexually Transmitted Infections Among STI Clinic Patients in St Petersburg, Russia

  • Weihai Zhan
  • Tatiana V. Krasnoselskikh
  • Sergei Golovanov
  • Andrei P. Kozlov
  • Nadia AbdalaEmail author
Original Paper


We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine whether the time between two consecutive sexual partnerships (gap) is associated with sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in Russia. A self-administered questionnaire was administered to STI clinic patients in St. Petersburg and participant’s STI data at the time of enrollment in the study was collected from medical charts. The length of the gap between partnerships was divided into four categories: overlapping (0 or negative gap), short gaps (1–90 days), mid-length gaps (91–365 days), and long gaps (366 days or more). Among the 659 respondents, 22.6% had overlapping partnerships, and 13.7, 4.2, and 59.5% had short, mid-length and long gaps, respectively. Short gaps (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.38–3.95), but not overlapping relationships, were independently associated with STIs when contrasted against long term gaps. HIV prevention programs for Russian STI clinic patients should therefore focus also on prolonging the gap between consecutive, monogamous sexual partnerships.


Gap between sexual partnerships Consecutive sexual relationships Serial monogamous relationships Partner concurrency STI Russia 



Funding source: This work was supported by grant number RO3 DA020384 (PI: N. Abdala) from the National Institute of Drug Abuse. The content of this study is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Drug Abuse or the National Institutes of Health.


  1. 1.
    Pequegnat W, Fishbein M, Celentano D, et al. NIMH/APPC workgroup on behavioral and biological outcomes in HIV/STD prevention studies: a position statement. Sex Transm Dis. 2000;27(3):127–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ghani AC, Swinton J, Garnett GP. The role of sexual partnership networks in the epidemiology of gonorrhea. Sex Transm Dis. 1997;24(1):45–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morris M, Kurth AE, Hamilton DT, Moody J, Wakefield S. Concurrent partnerships and HIV prevalence disparities by race: linking science and public health practice. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(6):1023–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosenberg MD, Gurvey JE, Adler N, Dunlop MB, Ellen JM. Concurrent sex partners and risk for sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents. Sex Transm Dis. 1999;26(4):208–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    UNAIDS Reference Group on Estimates Modelling and Projections. HIV: consensus indicators are needed for concurrency. Lancet. 2010;375(9715):621–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen MI, Ghani AC, Edmunds J. Mind the gap: the role of time between sex with two consecutive partners on the transmission dynamics of gonorrhea. Sex Transm Dis. 2008;35(5):435–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kraut-Becher JR, Aral SO. Gap length: an important factor in sexually transmitted disease transmission. Sex Transm Dis. 2003;30(3):221–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foxman B, Newman M, Percha B, Holmes KK, Aral SO. Measures of sexual partnerships: lengths, gaps, overlaps, and sexually transmitted infection. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(4):209–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    NIMH Collaborative HIV/STD Prevention Trial. Sexually transmitted disease and HIV prevalence and risk factors in concentrated and generalized HIV epidemic settings. AIDS. 2007;21(Suppl 2):S81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abdala N, Carney JM, Durante AJ, et al. Estimating the prevalence of syringe-borne and sexually transmitted diseases among injection drug users in St. Petersburg, Russia. Int J STD AIDS. 2003;14(10):697–703.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Niccolai LM, Shcherbakova IS, Toussova OV, Kozlov AP, Heimer R. The potential for bridging of HIV transmission in the Russian Federation: sex risk behaviors and HIV prevalence among drug users (DUs) and their non-DU sex partners. J Urban Health. 2009;86(Suppl 1):131–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Niccolai LM, Kershaw TS, Lewis JB, Cicchetti DV, Ethier KA, Ickovics JR. Data collection for sexually transmitted disease diagnoses: a comparison of self-report, medical record reviews, and state health department reports. Ann Epidemiol. 2005;15(3):236–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chesson HW, Blandford JM, Pinkerton SD. Estimates of the annual number and cost of new HIV infections among women attributable to trichomoniasis in the United States. Sex Transm Dis. 2004;31(9):547–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pinkerton SD, Layde PM, DiFranceisco W, Chesson HW. All STDs are not created equal: an analysis of the differential effects of sexual behaviour changes on different STDs. Int J STD AIDS. 2003;14(5):320–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elliott AC, Reisch JS. Implementing a multiple comparisons test for proportions in a 2 x c cross tabulation table in SAS. Available at: Accessed 18 Jan 2011.
  16. 16.
    Zar JH. Biostatistical Analysis. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kalichman SC, Grebler T. Reducing numbers of sex partners: do we really need special interventions for sexual concurrency? AIDS Behav. 2010;14(5):987–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Workowski KA, Berman S. Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines (2010). MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010;59(RR-12):1–110.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Weihai Zhan
    • 1
  • Tatiana V. Krasnoselskikh
    • 2
  • Sergei Golovanov
    • 3
  • Andrei P. Kozlov
    • 2
  • Nadia Abdala
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Yale School of Public Health, Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.The Biomedical CenterSt. PetersburgRussian Federation
  3. 3.Sexually Transmitted Disease Department of the Kalininsky District Dispensary for Skin and Venereal DiseasesSt PetersburgRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations