AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 21, Issue 8, pp 2261–2269 | Cite as

Intimate Partner Violence and PrEP Acceptability Among Low-Income, Young Black Women: Exploring the Mediating Role of Reproductive Coercion

  • Tiara Willie
  • Trace Kershaw
  • Jacquelyn C. Campbell
  • Kamila A. Alexander
Original Paper

Abstract

A few studies suggest that women who experience intimate partner violence (IPV) are willing to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), but no research has examined mediators of this relationship. The current study used path analysis to examine a phenomenon closely associated with IPV: reproductive coercion, or explicit male behaviors to promote pregnancy of a female partner without her knowledge or against her will. Birth control sabotage and pregnancy coercion—two subtypes of reproductive coercion behaviors—were examined as mediators of the relationship between IPV and PrEP acceptability among a cohort of 147 Black women 18–25 years of age recruited from community-based organizations in an urban city. IPV experiences were indirectly related to PrEP acceptability through birth control sabotage (indirect effect = 0.08; p < 0.05), but not to pregnancy coercion. Findings illustrate the importance of identifying and addressing reproductive coercion when assessing whether PrEP is clinically appropriate and a viable option to prevent HIV among women who experience IPV.

Keywords

Intimate partner violence Reproductive coercion HIV Pre-exposure prophylaxis Black/African-American women 

Resumen

Algunos estudios sugieren que las mujeres que experimentan violencia de pareja están dispuestas a usar la profilaxis previa a la exposición (PrEP), pero ninguna investigación ha examinado a los mediadores de esta relación. El presente estudio utilizó el análisis de trayectoria para examinar un fenómeno estrechamente asociado con el IPV: coerción reproductiva o comportamientos masculinos explícitos para promover el embarazo de una pareja sin su conocimiento o contra su voluntad. El control del control de la natalidad y la coerción del embarazo -dos subtipos de conductas de coerción reproductiva- fueron examinados como mediadores de la relación entre la aceptación de la violencia de pareja y PrEP en una cohorte de 147 mujeres negras de 18 a 25 años reclutadas de organizaciones comunitarias en una ciudad urbana. Las experiencias de IPV se relacionaron indirectamente con la aceptación de la PrEP a través del sabotaje de control de la natalidad (efecto indirecto = 0,08; p < 0,05), pero no a la coerción del embarazo. Los hallazgos ilustran la importancia de identificar y abordar la coerción reproductiva al evaluar si la PrEP es clínicamente apropiada y una opción viable para prevenir el VIH entre las mujeres que experimentan violencia de pareja.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (R25-MH087217 and T32MH020031) and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (T32-HDO64428).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review boards and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, et al. Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception. 2010;81(4):316–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller E, Decker MR, Reed E, Raj A, Hathaway JE, Silverman JG. Male partner pregnancy-promoting behaviors and adolescent partner violence: findings from a qualitative study with adolescent females. Ambul Pediatr. 2007;7(5):360–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Obstetricians ACo, Gynecologists. Acog committee opinion no. 554: Reproductive and sexual coercion. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(2 Pt 1):411.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, et al. A family planning clinic partner violence intervention to reduce risk associated with reproductive coercion. Contraception. 2011;83(3):274–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miller E, Decker MR, Raj A, Reed E, Marable D, Silverman JG. Intimate partner violence and health care-seeking patterns among female users of urban adolescent clinics. Matern Child Health J. 2010;14(6):910–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brawner BM, Alexander KA, Fannin EF, Baker JL, Davis ZM. The role of sexual health professionals in developing a shared concept of risky sexual behavior as it relates to HIV transmission. Public Health Nurs. 2015.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark LE, Allen RH, Goyal V, Raker C, Gottlieb AS. Reproductive coercion and co-occurring intimate partner violence in obstetrics and gynecology patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(1):42. e41–42. e48.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grace KT, Anderson JC. Reproductive coercion a systematic review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2016:1524838016663935.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller E, Silverman JG. Reproductive coercion and partner violence: Implications for clinical assessment of unintended pregnancy. Expert Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2010;5:511–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCauley HL, Falb KL, Streich-Tilles T, Kpebo D, Gupta J. Mental health impacts of reproductive coercion among women in côte d’ivoire. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2014;127(1):55–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dunkle KL, Decker MR. Gender-based violence and HIV: reviewing the evidence for links and causal pathways in the general population and high-risk groups. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2013;69(s1):20–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li Y, Marshall CM, Rees HC, Nunez A, Ezeanolue EE, Ehiri JE. Intimate partner violence and HIV infection among women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014;17(1):18845.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maman S, Campbell J, Sweat MD, Gielen AC. The intersections of HIV and violence: directions for future research and interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50(4):459–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stockman JK, Lucea MB, Campbell JC. Forced sexual initiation, sexual intimate partner violence and HIV risk in women: a global review of the literature. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(3):832–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Underhill K, Operario D, Mimiaga MJ, Skeer MR, Mayer KH. Implementation science of pre-exposure prophylaxis: preparing for public use. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2010;7(4):210–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ware NC, Wyatt MA, Haberer JE, et al. What’s love got to do with it? Explaining adherence to oral antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (prep) for HIV serodiscordant couples. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012;59(5):463.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Administration FaD. Truvada for prep fact sheet: Ensuring safe and proper useGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wingood GM, Dunkle K, Camp C, et al. Racial differences and correlates of potential adoption of pre-exposure prophylaxis (prep): results of a national survey. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63(01):S95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rubtsova A. M Wingood, G, Dunkle K, Camp C, J DiClemente R. Young adult women and correlates of potential adoption of pre-exposure prophylaxis (prep): results of a national survey. Curr HIV Res. 2013;11(7):543–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kelley CF, Kahle E, Siegler A, et al. Applying a prep continuum of care for men who have sex with men in Atlanta GA. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61:1590.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, et al. National intimate partner and sexual violence survey. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Amaro H, Raj A. On the margin: power and women’s HIV risk reduction strategies. Sex Roles. 2000;42(7–8):723–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boekeloo B, Geiger T, Wang M, et al. Evaluation of a socio-cultural intervention to reduce unprotected sex for HIV among African American/Black women. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(10):1752–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    HIV Surveillance report 2011: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2013.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Painter JE, Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ, DePadilla LM, Simpson-Robinson L. College graduation reduces vulnerability to STIS/HIV among African-American young adult women. Womens Health Issues. 2012;22(3):e303–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hodder SL, Justman J, Haley DF, et al. Challenges of a hidden epidemic: HIV prevention among women in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55(Suppl 2):S69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walton-Moss BJ, Manganello J, Frye V, Campbell JC. Risk factors for intimate partner violence and associated injury among urban women. J Commun Health. 2005;30(5):377–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taft CT, Bryant-Davis T, Woodward HE, Tillman S, Torres SE. Intimate partner violence against African American women: an examination of the socio-cultural context. Aggress Violent Behav. 2009;14(1):50–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stockman J, Campbell J, Campbell D, Sharps P, Callwood G. Sexual intimate partner violence, sexual risk behaviors, and contraceptive practices among women of African descent. Contraception. 2010;82(2):212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Flash CA, Stone VE, Mitty JA, et al. Perspectives on HIV prevention among urban Black women: a potential role for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2014;28(12):635–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ. Application of the theory of gender and power to examine HIV-related exposures, risk factors, and effective interventions for women. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27(5):539–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Panchanadeswaran S, Johnson SC, Go VF, et al. Using the theory of gender and power to examine experiences of partner violence, sexual negotiation, and risk of HIV/AIDS among economically disadvantaged women in Southern India. J Aggress Maltreatment Trauma. 2007;15(3–4):155–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, Sugarman DB. The revised conflict tactics scales (cts2) development and preliminary psychometric data. J Fam Issues. 1996;17(3):283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Straus MA, Douglas EM. A short form of the revised conflict tactics scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence Vict. 2004;19(5):507–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nie NH, Bent DH, Hull CH. Spss: Statistical package for the social sciences, vol. 421. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1975.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus. Statistical analyses with latent variables. User’s Guide. 1998;3.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lt Hu, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004;36(4):717–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mujugira A, Baeten JM, Donnell D, et al. Characteristics of HIV-1 serodiscordant couples enrolled in a clinical trial of antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 prevention. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(10):e25828.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Murnane PM, Celum C, Nelly M, et al. Efficacy of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 prevention among high-risk heterosexuals: subgroup analyses from the partners prep study. AIDS. 2013;27(13):2155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cohen MS, Baden LR. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV—where do we go from here? N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):459–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Miller E, McCauley HL, Tancredi DJ, Decker MR, Anderson H, Silverman JG. Recent reproductive coercion and unintended pregnancy among female family planning clients. Contraception. 2014;89(2):122–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Decker MR, Miller E, McCauley HL, et al. Recent partner violence and sexual and drug-related STI/HIV risk among adolescent and young adult women attending family planning clinics. Sex Transm Infect. 2013;90:145.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mugo NR, Heffron R, Donnell D et al. Increased risk of HIV-1 transmission in pregnancy: a prospective study among African HIV-1 serodiscordant couples. AIDS (London, England). 2011;25(15):1887.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pace JE, Siberry GK, Hazra R, Kapogiannis BG. Preexposure prophylaxis for adolescents and young adults at risk for HIV infection: is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(8):1149–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kazmerski T, McCauley HL, Jones K, et al. Use of reproductive and sexual health services among female family planning clinic clients exposed to partner violence and reproductive coercion. Matern Child Health J. 2015;19(7):1490–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Silverman JG, Decker MR, McCauley HL, et al. Male perpetration of intimate partner violence and involvement in abortions and abortion-related conflict. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(8):1415–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fontenot HB, Fantasia HC. Do women in abusive relationships have contraceptive control? Nurs Womens Health. 2011;15(3):239–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Etudo O, Metheny N, Stephenson R, Kalokhe AS. Intimate partner violence is linked to less HIV testing uptake among high-risk, HIV-negative women in Atlanta. AIDS Care. 2016;1–4.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Karamagi CA, Tumwine JK, Tylleskar T, Heggenhougen K. Intimate partner violence against women in Eastern Uganda: implications for HIV prevention. BMC Public Health. 2006;6(1):284.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    SAMHSA. Guiding principles of trauma-informed care. 2014. https://newsletter.samhsa.gov/2014/04/30/guiding-principles-trauma-informed-care/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiara Willie
    • 1
    • 2
  • Trace Kershaw
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jacquelyn C. Campbell
    • 3
  • Kamila A. Alexander
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDSYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Division of Social and Behavioral SciencesYale School of Public HealthNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Department of Community Public Health NursingJohns Hopkins School of NursingBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Johns Hopkins School of NursingBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations