Advertisement

AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 728–736 | Cite as

Exploring Discordance Between Biologic and Self-Reported Measures of Semen Exposure: A Qualitative Study Among Female Patients Attending an STI Clinic in Jamaica

  • Marion W. CarterEmail author
  • Althea Bailey
  • Margaret C. Snead
  • Elizabeth Costenbader
  • Malene Townsend
  • Maurizio Macaluso
  • Denise J. Jamieson
  • Tina Hylton-Kong
  • Lee Warner
  • Markus J. Steiner
Original Paper

Abstract

We explored the use of qualitative interviews to discuss discrepancies between two sources of information on unprotected sex: biomarker results and self-reported survey data. The study context was a randomized trial in Kingston, Jamaica examining the effect of STI counseling messages on recent sexual behavior using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as the primary study outcome. Twenty women were interviewed. Eleven participants were selected because they tested positive for PSA indicating recent semen exposure, yet reported no unprotected sex in a quantitative survey (“discordant”): 5 reported abstinence and 6 reported condom use. Nine participants who also tested positive for PSA but reported unprotected sex in the survey were interviewed for comparison (“concordant”). Qualitative interviews with 6 of the 11 discordant participants provided possible explanations for their PSA test results, and 5 of those were prompted by direct discussion of those results. Rapid PSA testing combined with qualitative interviews provides a novel tool for investigating and complementing self-reported sexual behavior.

Keywords

Qualitative study Self-reported data Semen biomarker Prostate-specific antigen Jamaica 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Maria Gallo, Shashauna Eastman, and Melrose Ellis for their support of this project. The findings and conclusions of this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

  1. 1.
    Tourangeau R, Groves RM, Redline CD. Sensitive topics and reluctant respondents: demonstrating a link between nonresponse bias and measurement error. Public Opin Q. 2010;74(3):413–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tourangeau R, Yan T. Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychol Bull. 2007;133(5):859–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis RE, Couper MP, Janz NK, Caldwell CH, Resnicow K. Interviewer effects in public health surveys. Health Educ Res. 2010;25(1):14–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Langhaug LF, Sherr L, Cowan FM. How to improve the validity of sexual behaviour reporting: systematic review of questionnaire delivery modes in developing countries. Trop Med Intl Health. 2010;15(3):362–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mensch BS, Hewett PC, Abbott S, Rankin J, Littlefield S, Ahmed K, et al. Assessing the reporting of adherence and sexual activity in a simulated microbicide trial in South Africa: an interview mode experiment using a placebo gel. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(2):407–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mensch BS, Hewett PC, Jones HE, Luppi CG, Lippman SA, Pinho AA, et al. Consistency in women’s reports of sensitive behavior in an interview mode experiment, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2008;34(4):169–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Minnis AM, Steiner MJ, Gallo MF, Warner L, Hobbs MM, van der Straten A, et al. Biomarker validation of reports of recent sexual activity: results of a randomized controlled study in Zimbabwe. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(7):918–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Phillips AE, Gomez GB, Boily MC, Garnett GP. A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative interviewing tools to investigate self-reported HIV and STI associated behaviours in low- and middle-income countries. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(6):1541–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schroder KE, Carey MP, Vanable PA. Methodological challenges in research on sexual risk behavior: II Accuracy of self-reports. Ann Behav Med. 2003;26(2):104–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stuart GS, Grimes DA. Social desirability bias in family planning studies: a neglected problem. Contraception. 2009;80(2):108–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turner AN, De Kock AE, Meehan-Ritter A, Blanchard K, Sebola MH, Hoosen AA, et al. Many vaginal microbicide trial participants acknowledged they had misreported sensitive sexual behavior in face-to-face interviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(7):759–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diclemente RJ, Sales JM, Danner F, Crosby RA. Association between sexually transmitted diseases and young adults’ self-reported abstinence. Pediatrics. 2011;127(2):208–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hochmeister MN, Budowle B, Rudin O, Gehrig C, Borer U, Thali M, et al. Evaluation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) membrane test assays for the forensic identification of seminal fluid. J Forensic Sci. 1999;44(5):1057–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kearsey J, Louie H, Poon H. Validation study of the “OneStep ABAcard PSA Test” kit for RCMP casework. Can Soc Forensic Sci J. 2001;34(2):63–72.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graves HC, Sensabaugh GF, Blake ET. Postcoital detection of a male-specific semen protein. Application to the investigation of rape. N Eng J Med. 1985;312(6):338–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kamenev L, Leclercq M, Francois-Gerard C. An enzyme immunoassay for prostate-specific p30 antigen detection in the postcoital vaginal tract. J Forensic Sci Soc. 1989;29(4):233–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lawson ML, Maculuso M, Bloom A, Hortin G, Hammond KR, Blackwell R. Objective markers of condom failure. Sex Transm Dis. 1998;25(8):427–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Macaluso M, Lawson L, Akers R, Valappil T, Hammond K, Blackwell R, et al. Prostate-specific antigen in vaginal fluid as a biologic marker of condom failure. Contraception. 1999;59(3):195–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aho J, Koushik A, Diakite SL, Loua KM, Nguyen VK, Rashed S. Biological validation of self-reported condom use among sex workers in Guinea. AIDS Behav. 2009;170(7):918–24.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gallo MF, Behets FM, Steiner MJ, Hobbs MM, Hoke TH, Van Damme K, et al. Prostate-specific antigen to ascertain reliability of self-reported coital exposure to semen. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(8):476–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gallo MF, Behets FM, Steiner MJ, Thomsen SC, Ombidi W, Luchters S, et al. Validity of self reported ‘safe sex’ among female sex workers in Mombasa, Kenya–PSA analysis. Int J STD AIDS. 2007;18(1):33–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gallo MF, Steiner MJ, Hobbs MM, Weaver MA, Hoke TH, Van Damme K, et al. Predictors of unprotected sex among female sex workers in Madagascar: comparing semen biomarkers and self-reported data. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(6):1279–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen MP, Macaluso M, Blackwell R, Galvao L, Kulczycki A, Diaz J, et al. Self-reported mechanical problems during condom use and semen exposure. Comparison of two randomized trials in the United States of America and Brazil. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34(8):557–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Plummer ML, Ross DA, Wight D, Changalucha J, Mshana G, Wamoyi J, et al. “A bit more truthful”: the validity of adolescent sexual behaviour data collected in rural northern Tanzania using five methods. Sex Transm Infect. 2004;80(Suppl 2:ii):49–56.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pool R, Montgomery CM, Morar NS, Mweemba O, Ssali A, Gafos M, et al. Assessing the accuracy of adherence and sexual behaviour data in the MDP301 vaginal microbicides trial using a mixed methods and triangulation model. PLoS One. 2010;5(7):e11632.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Anderson C, Gallo M, Hylton-Kong T, Steiner M, Hobbs M, Macaluso M, et al. Randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of counseling messages for avoiding unprotected sexual intercourse during STI and RTI treatment among female STI clinic patients. Sex Transm Dis. (in press)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hobbs MM, Steiner MJ, Rich KD, Gallo MF, Alam A, Rahman M, et al. Good performance of rapid prostate-specific antigen test for detection of semen exposure in women: implications for qualitative research. Sex Transm Dis. 2009;36(8):501–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dreher M, Hudgins R. Maternal conjugal multiplicity and child development in rural Jamaica. Fam Relations. 2010;59(5):495–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mitchell K, Wellings K, Elam G, Erens B, Fenton K, Johnson A. How can we facilitate reliable reporting in surveys of sexual behaviour? Evidence from qualitative research. Cult Health Sex. 2007;9(5):519–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thomsen SC, Gallo MF, Ombidi W, Omungo Z, Janowitz B, Hawken M, et al. Randomised controlled trial on whether advance knowledge of prostate-specific antigen testing improves participant reporting of unprotected sex. Sex Transm Infect. 2007;83(5):419–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chillag K, Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L, Kilmarx P, Smith DK. Talking about sex in Botswana: social desirability bias and possible implications for HIV-prevention research. Afr J AIDS Res. 2006;5(2):123–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mauck CK, Doncel GF. Biomarkers of semen in the vagina: applications in clinical trials of contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted pathogens including HIV. Contraception. 2007;75(6):407–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC (outside the USA)  2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marion W. Carter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Althea Bailey
    • 2
  • Margaret C. Snead
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Costenbader
    • 3
  • Malene Townsend
    • 4
  • Maurizio Macaluso
    • 5
  • Denise J. Jamieson
    • 1
  • Tina Hylton-Kong
    • 4
  • Lee Warner
    • 1
  • Markus J. Steiner
    • 6
  1. 1.Division of Reproductive HealthCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Community Health and PsychiatryUniversity of the West IndiesKingstonJamaica
  3. 3.Behavioral and Social Science DepartmentFHI 360DurhamUSA
  4. 4.Comprehensive Health Centre (CHC)/Epidemiology Research and Training Unit (ERTU)Jamaica Ministry of HealthKingstonJamaica
  5. 5.Division of Biostatistics and EpidemiologyCincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical CenterCincinnatiUSA
  6. 6.Clinical Sciences DepartmentFHI 360DurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations