Advertisement

AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 726–739 | Cite as

Outcomes of a Behavioral Intervention to Reduce HIV Risk Among Drug-involved Female Sex Workers

  • Hilary L. SurrattEmail author
  • Catherine O’Grady
  • Steven P. Kurtz
  • Maria A. Levi-Minzi
  • Minxing Chen
Original Paper

Abstract

Although street-based female sex workers (FSWs) are highly vulnerable to HIV, they often lack access to needed health services and medical care. This paper reports the results of a recently completed randomized intervention trial for FSWs in Miami, Florida, which tested the relative efficacy of two case management interventions that aimed to link underserved FSWs with health services and to reduce risk behaviors for HIV. Participants were recruited using targeted sampling strategies and were randomly assigned to: a Strengths-Based/Professional Only (PO) or a Strengths-Based/Professional-Peer condition (PP). Follow-up data were collected 3 and 6 months post-baseline. Outcome analyses indicated that both intervention groups displayed significant reductions in HIV risk behaviors and significant increases in services utilization; the Professional-Peer condition provided no added benefit. HIV seropositive FSWs responded particularly well to the interventions, suggesting the utility of brief strengths-based case management interventions for this population in future initiatives.

Keywords

Female sex workers HIV interventions Service utilization Peers Drug use 

Resumen

Aunque trabajadoras sexuales (TS) de la calle son altamente vulnerables al VIH, ellas a menudo carecen del necesario acceso a los servicios de salud y a la atención médica. En este trabajo se reportan los resultados de un estudio aleatorizado de intervención completado recientemente para TS en Miami, Florida, que puso a prueba la eficacia relativa de dos intervenciones de manejo de casos que tenían como objetivo vincular las TS marginadas con los servicios de salud necesarios y para reducir las conductas de riesgo de VIH. Las participantes fueron reclutadas utilizando estrategias de muestreo específico y fueron asignadas al azar a: una condición basada en Fortaleza/Sólo Profesional o en Fortaleza/Colega-Profesional (CP). Los datos de seguimiento se recogieron a los 3 y 6 meses post-basal. El análisis de los resultados indicó que ambos grupos de intervención muestran reducciones significativas en las conductas de riesgo de VIH y un aumento significativo en la utilización de servicios; la condición CP proporciona ningún beneficio adicional. TS VIH seropositivo respondieron particularmente bien a las intervenciones, lo que sugiere la utilidad de las intervenciones breves de manejo de casos basadas en las fortalezas para esta población en las iniciativas futuras.

Palabras claves

Trabajadoras del sexo Intervenciones de VIH Utilización de servicios Colega Uso de drogas 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Grant No. R01DA013131 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. We gratefully acknowledge Dr. James A. Inciardi, PI of this study through 2009.

References

  1. 1.
    Wariki WMV, Ota E, Mori R, et al. Behavioral interventions to reduce the transmission of HIV infection among sex workers and their clients in low-and middle-income countries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chersich MF, Luchters S, Ntaganira I, et al. Priority interventions to reduce HIV transmission in sex work settings in sub-Saharan African and the delivery of these services. J Int AIDS Soc. 2013;16:17980.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baral S, Beyrer C, Muessig K, et al. Burden of HIV among female sex workers in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12:538–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baseman J, Ross M, Williams M. Sale of sex for drugs and drugs for sex: an economic context of sexual risk behaviors for STDs. Sex Transm Dis. 1999;26(8):444–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deren S, Sanchez J, Shedlin M, et al. HIV risk behaviors among Dominican Brothel and Street Prostitutes in New York City. AIDS Educ Prev. 1996;8(5):444–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goudreau R. Prostitutes status seen as a factor: dade study shows sharp differences. Miami Herald. 1987; 14A.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hansen H, Lopez-Iftikhar MM, Alegría MJ. The economy of risk and respect: accounts by puerto rican sex workers of HIV risk taking. J Sex Res. 2002;39(4):292–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kwiatkowski CF, Booth RE. Differences in HIV risk behaviors among women who exchange sex for drugs, money, or both drugs and money. AIDS Behav. 2000;4(3):233–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Booth RE, Kwiatkowski CF, Weissman G. Health-related service utilization and HIV risk behaviors among HIV infected injection drug users and crack smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1999;55:69–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McKeganey NP. Prostitution and HIV: what do we know and where might research be targeted in the future? AIDS. 1994;8(9):1215–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Porter J, Bonilla L. Drug use, HIV, and the ecology of street prostitution. In: Weitzer R, editor. Sex for sale: prostitution, pornography, and the sex industry. New York: Routledge; 2000. p. 103–21.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Surratt HL, Inciardi JA. HIV risk, seropositivity and predictors of infection among homeless and non-homeless women sex workers in Miami, Florida, USA. AIDS Care. 2004;16(5):594–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wojcicki JM, Malala J. Condom use, power and HIV/AIDS risk: sex-workers bargain for survival in Hillbrow/Joubert Park/Berea, Johannesburg. Soc Sci Med. 2001;53(1):99–121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurtz SP, Surratt HL, Kiley MC, Inciardi JA. Barriers to health and social services for street-based sex workers. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2005;16(2):345–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wechsberg WM, Lam WKK, Zule W, et al. Violence, homelessness, and HIV risk among crack-using African-American women. Subst Use Misuse. 2003;38(3–6):669–700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    King EJ, Maman S, Bowling JM, Moracco KE, Dudina V. The influence of stigma and discrimination on female sex workers’ access to HIV services in St. Petersburg, Russia. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(8):2597–603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Odek WO, Busza J, Morris CN, et al. Effects of micro-enterprise services on HIV risk behaviour among female sex workers in Kenya’s urban slums. AIDS Behav. 2009;13:449–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Surratt HL, Inciardi JA, Kurtz SP, Kiley MC. Sex work and drug use in a subculture of violence. Crime Delinq. 2004;50(1):43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Surratt HL, Kurtz SP, Weaver JC, Inciardi JA. The connections of mental health problems, violent life experiences, and the social milieu of the “stroll” with the HIV risk behaviors of female street sex workers. J Psychol Human Sex. 2005;17(1/2):23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Manopaiboon C, Prybylski D, Subhachaturas W, et al. Unexpectedly high HIV prevalence among female sex workers in Bangkok, Thailand in a respondent-driven sampling survey. Int J STD AIDS. 2013;24(1):34–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beattie TSH, Bhattacharjee P, Suresh M, et al. Personal, interpersonal and structural challenges to accessing HIV testing, treatment and care services among female sex workers, men who have sex with men, and transgenders in Karnataka state, South India. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:42–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Flynn MB, McKeever JL, Spda T, Gordon-Garofalo V. Active client participation: an examination of self-empowerment in HIV/AIDS case management with women. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2000;11(3):59–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shedlin MG. An ethnographic approach to understanding HIV high-risk behaviors: prostitution and drug abuse. AIDS and intravenous drug use: future directions for community-based prevention research [NIDA research monograph]. DHHS Publication No. (ADM) 90-1627, vol. 93. Rockville: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1990. p. 134–49.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weiner A. Understanding the social needs of streetwalking prostitutes. Soc Work. 1996;41(1):97–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Overs C. The tide cannot be turned without us: HIV epidemics amongst key affected populations. Paper presented at: XIX International AIDS Conference; July 26, 2012; Washington.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wechsberg WM, Luseno WK, Lam WKK, Parry CDH, Morojele NK. Substance use, sexual risk, and violence: HIV prevention intervention with sex workers in Pretoria. AIDS Behav. 2006;10(2):131–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rou K, Wu Z, Sullivan SG, et al. A five-city trial of a behavioural intervention to reduce sexually transmitted disease/HIV risk among sex workers in China. AIDS. 2007;21(Suppl 8):S95–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morisky DE, Stein JA, Chiao C. Impact of a social infuence intervention on condom use and sexually transmitted infections among establishment-based female sex workers in the Philippines: a multilevel analysis. Health Psychol. 2006;25(5):595–603.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patterson TL, Mausbach B, Lozada R, et al. Efficacy of a brief behavioral intervention to promote condom use among female sex workers in Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(11):2051–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rojanapithayakorn W. The 100 % condom use program in Asia. Reprod Health Matters. 2006;14(28):41–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Luchters S. Impact of five years of peer-mediated interventions on sexual behavior and sexually transmitted infections among female sex workers in Mombasa, Kenya. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:143.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Markosyan K, Lang DL, Salazar LF, et al. A randomized control trial of am HIV prevention intervention for street-based female sex workers in Yerevan, Armenia: preliminary evidence of efficacy. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:530–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chiao C, Morisky DE, Ksobiech K, Malow RM. Promoting HIV testing and condom use among Filipina commerical sex workers: findings from a quasi-experimental intervention study. AIDS Behav. 2009;13:892–901.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wechsberg WM, Zule WA, Luseno WK, et al. Effectiveness of an adapted evidence-based woman-focused intervention for sex workers and non-sex workers: the Women’s Health CoOp in South Africa. J Drug Issues. 2011;41(2):233–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Strathdee S, Abramovitz D, Remedios L, et al. Reductions in HIV/STI incidence and sharing of injection equipment among female sex workers who inject drugs: results from a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(6):e65812.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Swenderman D, Basu I, Das S, Jana S, Rotheram-Borus MJ. Empowering sex workers in India to reduce vulnerability to HIV and sexually transmitted diseases. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(8):1157–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sherman SG, Srikrishnan AK, Rivett KA, et al. Acceptability of a microenterprise intervention among female sex workers in Chennai, India. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:649–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Basu I, Jana S, Rotheram-Borus MJ, et al. HIV prevention among sex workers in India. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004;36(3):845–52.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Beyrer C, Baral S, Kerrigan D, et al. Expanding the space: inclusion of most-at-risk populations in HIV prevention, treatment, and care services. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;57(Supplement 2):S96–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Inciardi JA, Surratt HL, Kurtz SP. HIV, HBV, and HCV infections among drug-involved, inner-city, street sex workers in Miami, Florida. AIDS Behav. 2006;10(2):137–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Scaccabarrozzi L. Sex workers and HIV. AIDS community research initiate of America update. 2006;15(1):1–27. http://img.thebody.com/legacyAssets/41/40/winter06.pdf#page=1. Accessed 29 Oct 2012.
  42. 42.
    Parvez F, Katyal M, Alper H, Leibowitz R, Venters H. Female sex workers incarcerated in New York City jails: prevalence of sexually transmitted infections and associated risk behaviors. Sex Transm Infect. 2013;89:280–4.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Surratt HL, Inciardi JA. An effective HIV risk reduction reduction protocol for drug-using women sex workers. J Prev Interv Community. 2010;38:118–31.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rapp RC, Otto AL, Lane DT, et al. Improving linkage with substance abuse treatment using brief case management and motivational interviewing. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;94(1–3):172–82.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rapp RC, Siegal HA, Li L, Saha P. Predicting post-primary treatment services and drug use outcome: a multivariate analysis. Am J Alcohol Drug Abus. 1998;24(4):603–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hesse M, Vanderplasschen W, Rapp R, Broekaert E, Fridell M. Case management for persons with substance use disorders (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 (10). http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=ed64213e-7466-43c1-a156-b8653ff53f67%40sessionmgr4003&hid=4104.
  47. 47.
    Craw JA, Gardner LI, Marks G, et al. Brief strengths-based case management promotes entry into HIV medical care: results of the antiretroviral treatment access study-II. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008;47(5):597–606.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gardner EM, Metsch LR, Anderson-Mahoney P, et al. Efficacy of a brief case management intervention to link recently diagnosed HIV-infected persons to care. AIDS. 2005;19:423–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hays RB, Peterson JL. HIV prevention for gay and bisexual men in metropolitan cities. In: DiClemente RJ, Peterson JL, editors. Preventing AIDS: theories and methods of behavioral interventions. New York: Plenum Press; 1994. p. 267–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Latkin CA. Outreach in natural setting: the use of peer leaders for HIV prevention among drug users’ networks. Public Health Rep. 1998;113(Suppl. 1):151–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Broadhead RS, Heckathorn DD, Altice FL, et al. Increasing drug users’ adherence to HIV treatment: results of a peer-driven intervention study. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(2):235–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Watters JK, Biernacki P. Targeted sampling: options for the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1989;36(4):416–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Miami Dade County Department of Health. Miami-Dade County Reported HIV (Not AIDS) Cases Through 2012. 2012; http://www.dadehealth.org/downloads/2012%20HIV%20Reported.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2013.
  54. 54.
    Miami Dade County Department of Health. Where black non-hispanics live, 2010. 2010; http://www.miamidade.gov/housing/library/reports/caper-2011-attachment-02.pdf. Accessed 6 Dec 2013.
  55. 55.
    Rapp RC. Strengths-based case management: enhancing treatment for persons with substance abuse problems. In: Saleebey D, editor. The strengths perspective in social work practice. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2006.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Modrcin M, Rapp C, Chamberlain R. Case management with physically disabled individuals: curriculum and training program. Lawrence: University of Kansas School of Social Welfare; 1985.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Buttram ME, Surratt HL, Kurtz SP. Resilience and syndemic risk factors among African American female sex workers. Psychol Health Med. 2013;1–11.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Dennis ML, Titus JC, White MK, Unsicker JI, Hodgkins D. Global appraisal of individual needs—initial (GAIN-I). Bloomington: Chestnut Health Systems; 2002.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Institute of Behavioral Research. TCU drug screen II. 2006; http://www.ibr.tcu.edu/pubs/datacoll/Forms/ddscreen-95.pdf. Accessed 5 Jul 2013.
  60. 60.
    Inciardi JA, Lockwood D, Pottieger AE. Women and crack-cocaine. New York: Macmillan; 1993.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Inciardi JA, Surratt HL, Kurtz SP, Weaver JC. The effect of serostatus on HIV risk behavior change among women sex workers in Miami, Florida. AIDS Care. 2005;17(1):S88–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2000;19:3127–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Siegal HA, Rapp RC, Kelliher CW, et al. The strengths based perspective of case management: a promising inpatient substance abuse treatment enhancement. J Psychoact Drugs. 1995;27(1):67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Siegal HA, Rapp RC, Li L, Saha P, Kirk K. The role of case management in retaining clients in substance abuse treatment: an exploratory analysis. J Drug Issues. 1997;27(4):821–31.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Strathdee SA, Ricketts EP, Huettner S, et al. Facilitating entry into drug treatment among injection drug users referred from a needle exchange program: results from a community-based behavioral intervention trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;83:225–32.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cunningham CO, Sohler NL, Cooperman NA, et al. Strategies to improve access to and utilization of health care services and adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected drug users. Subst Use Misuse. 2011;46(2–3):218–32.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bradford JB, Coleman S, Cunningham W. HIV system navigation: An emerging model to improve HIV care access. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2007;21(1):49–58.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hallum-Montes R, Manoloudis T, D’Souza R, et al. Results of a peer navigation pilot program to link HIV positive clients of harm reduction services with Ryan White clinical service providers. J Public Health Epidemiol. 2013;5(2):56–8.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Simoni JM, Pantalone DW, Plummer MD, Huang B. A randomized controlled trial of a peer support intervention targeting antiretroviral medication adherence and depressive symptomatology in HIV-positive men and women. Health Psychol. 2007;26(4):488–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Purcell DW, Latka MH, Metsch LR, et al. Results from a randomized controlled trial of a peer-mentoring intervention to reduce HIV transmission and increase access to care and adherence to HIV medications among HIV-seropositive injection drug users. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;46(Supp 2):S35–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sohler NL, Coleman SM, Cabral H, et al. Does self-report data on HIV primary care utilization agree with medical record data for socially marginalized populations in the United States? AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2009;23(10):837–43.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Short ME, Goetzel RZ, Pei X, et al. How accurate are self-reports? An analysis of self-reported healthcare utilization and absence when compared to administrative data. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51(7):786–96.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Reijneveld SA, Stronks K. The validity of self-reported use of health care across socioeconomic strata: a comparison of survey and registration data. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30(6):1407–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Carr CJA, Xu J, Redko C, et al. Individual and system influences on waiting time for substance abuse treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008;34(2):192–201.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Andrews CM, Shin HC, Marsh JC, Cao D. Client and program characteristics associated with wait time to substance abuse treatment entry. Am J Alcohol Abus. 2013;39(1):61–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hilary L. Surratt
    • 1
  • Catherine O’Grady
    • 1
  • Steven P. Kurtz
    • 1
  • Maria A. Levi-Minzi
    • 1
  • Minxing Chen
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Applied Research on Substance Use and Health DisparitiesNova Southeastern UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics, MD Anderson Cancer CenterThe University of TexasHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations