AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 2185–2193

Enhancing Acceptability and Use of Sexual Barrier Products Among HIV Concordant and Discordant Couples

  • Deborah Jones
  • Deborah Kashy
  • Olga Villar-Loubet
  • Stephen Weiss
Original Paper


Strategies to prevent HIV transmission may benefit from addressing both individual and dyadic factors. This study compared the impact of group and individual interventions on the acceptability of sexual barrier products among HIV sero-concordant and discordant couples, and evaluated the contribution of couple members’ perceived product acceptability to their sexual barrier use. Participants (n = 216 couples) were multicultural couples in Miami, Florida. Longitudinal multilevel modeling and the actor–partner interdependence model were used for analyses. Product acceptability increased more among female group participants, and acceptability of male condoms increased more among sero-discordant couples in the group. Additionally, acceptability of products associated with prevention of STDS/HIV and pregnancy increased more among sero-concordant couples in the group condition. Both actor and partner product acceptability predicted use. Results support the use of group interventions targeting both partners in relationships in prevention programs designed to enhance sexual barrier use.


HIV Couples Intervention Acceptability Multicultural Urban 


Estrategias para prevenir la transmisión del VIH puede beneficiarse investigando factores individuales y diádicos. Este estudio comparó el impacto de intervenciones de inviduos y grupos con la aceptabilidad de productos de barreras sexuales entre parejas VIH seroconcordantes y –discordantes, y evaluo la contribución de los miembros de la pareja con la aceptibilidad percibida del producto al uso de su barrera sexual. Participantes (n = 216 parejas) fueron parejas multiculturales en Miami, Florida. El modelo longitudinal multilevel y el Actor-Pareja Interdependiencia Modelo (APIM) fueron usados para análisis. La aceptación aumentó más entre el grupo de mujeres participantes, y la aceptación de condones masculinos aumentó mas entre las parejas sero-discordantes en el grupo. Además, aceptación de productos asociados con la prevención de enfermades transmitidas sexualmente (STDs)/VIH y embarazo aumentó más entre las parejas sero-concordantes en el grupo. La aceptación de productos de ambos actor y pareja predijo el uso. Los resultados apoyan el uso de intervenciones de grupo hacia ambas parejas en relaciones en los programas preventivos designados para aumentar el uso de barreras sexuales.


  1. 1.
    El-Bassel N, Gilbert L, Wu E, et al. Couple-based HIV prevention for low-income drug users from New York City: a randomized controlled trial to reduce dual risks. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;58:198–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harman JJ, Amico KR. The relationship-oriented information-motivation-behavioral skills model: a multilevel structural equation model among dyads. AIDS Behav. 2009;13:173–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albarracin D, Tannenbaum MB, Glasman LR, Rothman AJ. Modeling structural dyadic, and individual factors: the inclusion and exclusion model of HIV related behavior. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:S239–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eaton LA, West TV, Kenny DA, Kalichman SC. HIV transmission risk among HIV seroconcordant and serodiscordant couples: dyadic processes of partner selection. AIDS Behav. 2009;13(2):185–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kenny DA, Kashy DA, Cook WL. Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford; 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Iacobucci D, Wasserman S. A general framework for the statistical analysis of sequential dyadic interaction data. Psychol Bull. 1988;10:379–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Bassel N, Witte S, Gilbert L, et al. HIV prevention for intimate couples: a relationship-based model. Fam Syst Health. 2001;19:379–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    El-Bassel N, Witte S, Gilbert L, et al. Long-term effects of an HIV/STI sexual risk reduction intervention for heterosexual couples. AIDS Behav. 2005;9:1–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    El-Bassel N, Jemmott JB, Wingood GM, et al. NIMH multisite EBAN HIV/STD prevention intervention for African American HIV serodiscordant couples: a cluster randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1594–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karney BR, Hops H, Redding CA, Reis HT, Rothman AJ, Simpson JA. A framework for incorporating dyads in models of HIV-prevention. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(suppl 2):189–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnson BT, Scott-Sheldon LAJ, Smoak ND, LaCroix JM, Anderson JR, Carey MP. Behavioral interventions for African Americans to reduce sexual risk of HIV: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;51:492–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koniak-Griffin D, Lesser J, Henneman T. HIV prevention for Latino adolescent mothers and their partners. West J Nurs Res. 2008;30:724–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu C, Hu H, Goparaju L, et al. Sexual serosorting among women with or at risk of HIV infection. AIDS Behav. 2011;15:9–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grabbe K, Stephenson R, Vwalika B, et al. Knowledge, use, and concerns about contraceptive methods among sero-discordant couples in Rwanda and Zambia. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2009;18:1449–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jones DL, Weiss SM, Chitalu N, et al. Sexual risk reduction among Zambian couples. SAHARA J. 2009;6:69–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mizuno Y, et al. Beliefs that condoms reduce sexual pleasure: gender differences in correlates among heterosexual HIV-positive injection drug users (IDUs). J Urban Health. 2007;84(4):523–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kamb ML, Fishbein M, Douglas JM Jr, et al. Efficacy of risk-reduction counseling to prevent human immunodeficiency virus and sexually transmitted diseases: a randomized controlled trial. Project RESPECT Study Group. JAMA. 1998;280:1161–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gallo MF, Kilbourne-Brook M, Coffey PS. A review of the effectiveness and acceptability of the female condom for dual protection. Sex Health. 2012;9:18–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peters A, Jansen W, van Driel F. The female condom: the international denial of a strong potential. Reprod Health Matters. 2010;18:119–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kulczycki A, Kim DJ, Duerr A, Jamieson DJ, Macaluso M. A comparison of the acceptability of the female and male condom: a randomized crossover trial. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2004;36:120–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoffman S, Mantell J, Exner T, Stein Z. The future of the female condom. Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2004;30:139–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jones DL, Ross D, Weiss SM, Bhat G, Chitalu N. Influence of partner participation on sexual risk behavior reduction among HIV-positive Zambian women. J Urban Health. 2005;82:92–100.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coffey PS, Kilbourne-Brook M, Austin G, Seamans Y, Cohen J. Short-term acceptability of the PATH Woman’s condom among couples at three sites. Contraception. 2006;73:588–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Florida Department of Health. Provision of HIV Counseling, Testing, and Referral Services. Internal Operating Policy, Florida Statutes. (2012). Accessed 5 March 2013.
  26. 26.
    Jones D, Villar-Loubet OM, Kankasa C, Chitalu N, Mumbi M, Weiss S. Contraception and family planning among HIV seroconcordant and serodiscordant couples in the US and Zambia. Open Access J Contracept. 2010;1:23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lopez EJ, Jones DL, Villar-Loubet OM, Arheart K, Weiss SM. Violence, coping and consistent medication adherence in HIV-positive couples. AIDS Educ Prev. 2010;22:63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    El-Bassel N, Witte SS, Gilbert L, et al. The efficacy of a relationship-based HIV/STD prevention program for heterosexual couples. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:963–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meyer-Bahlberg HFL, Ehrhardt AA, Exner TM, et al. Sexual risk behavior assessment schedule: adult (SERBAS-A-DF-4) manual. 1990.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Albarracin D, Johnson BT, Fishbein M, Muellerleile PA. Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2001;127:142–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Org Behav Hum Decis. 1991;50:179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Florida Department of Health. HIV Counseling and Testing Annual Report 2004. (2004). Accessed 5 March 2013.
  33. 33.
    Kalichman SC, Rompa D, Cage M. Group intervention to reduce HIV transmission risk behavior among persons. Behav Modif. 2005;29:256–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah Jones
    • 1
  • Deborah Kashy
    • 2
  • Olga Villar-Loubet
    • 1
  • Stephen Weiss
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral SciencesUniversity of Miami Miller School of MedicineMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityLansingUSA

Personalised recommendations