Advertisement

AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 22, Issue 10, pp 3324–3334 | Cite as

HIV Prevention and Sex Behaviors as Organizing Mechanisms in a Facebook Group Affiliation Network Among Young Black Men Who Have Sex with Men

  • Lindsay E. Young
  • Kayo Fujimoto
  • John A. Schneider
Original Paper

Abstract

Online social networking sites (SNS)—the Internet-based platforms that enable connection and communication between users—are increasingly salient social environments for young adults and, consequently, offer tremendous opportunity for HIV behavioral research and intervention among vulnerable populations like young men who have sex with men (YMSM). Drawing from a cohort of 525 young Black MSM (YBMSM) living in Chicago, IL, USA April 2014–May 2015, we conducted social network analysis, estimating an exponential random graph model (ERGM) to model YBMSM’s group affiliations on Facebook in relation to their sex behaviors and HIV prevention traits. A group’s privacy setting—public, closed, or secret—was also modeled as a potential moderator of that relationship. Findings reveal that HIV positive individuals were more likely to affiliate with Facebook groups, while those who engaged in group sex were less likely to do so. When it came to the privacy of groups, we learned that HIV positive individuals tended not to belong to groups with greater privacy (e.g., closed and secret groups), while individuals who engaged in group sex and those who engaged in regular HIV testing were more likely to belong to those groups. Results also showed that individuals who engaged in condomless sex showed significant signs of clustering around the same set of groups. HIV positive individuals, on the other hand, were significantly less likely to demonstrate clustering. Implications for interventions and future research are discussed.

Keywords

HIV prevention Sex behaviors Social networking sites Social network analysis Young men who have sex with men 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted under the auspices of the uConnect Study Team. We would like to thank our partners at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago Stuart Michaels, Ishida Robinson, Eve Zurawski, Billy Davis and Michelle Taylor for their invaluable support. We also thank study participants for their time and contribution to the study.

Funding

This work was supported in part by NIH Grants R01DA033875, R01MH100021 and R01DA039934.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Lindsay Young declares she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Kayo Fujimoto declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. John Schneider declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10461_2018_2087_MOESM1_ESM.docx (261 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 260 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    CDC. HIV and Young Men who Have Sex with Men. 2014.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    CDC. HIV Among African American Gay and Bisexual Men. 2016.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fujimoto K, Williams ML, Ross MW. Venue-based affiliation networks and HIV risk-taking behavior among male sex workers. Sex Transm Dis. 2013;40(6):453.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Millett GA, Flores SA, Peterson JL, Bakeman R. Explaining disparities in HIV infection among black and white men who have sex with men: a meta-analysis of HIV risk behaviors. AIDS. 2007;21(15):2083–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kelly JA, St Lawrence JS, Diaz YE, Stevenson LY, Hauth AC, Brasfield TL, et al. HIV risk behavior reduction following intervention with key opinion leaders of population: an experimental analysis. Am J Public Health. 1991;81(2):168–71.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Latkin CA, Forman V, Knowlton A, Sherman S. Norms, social networks, and HIV-related risk behaviors among urban disadvantaged drug users. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(3):465–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shah NS, Iveniuk J, Muth SQ, Michaels S, Jose J-A, Laumann EO, et al. Structural bridging network position is associated with HIV status in a younger Black men who have sex with men epidemic. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(2):335–45.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schneider J, Michaels S, Bouris A. Family network proportion and HIV risk among black men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012;61(5):627.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perrin A. Social networking usage: 2005–2015. Pew Research Center; 2015.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greenwood S, Perrin A, Duggan M. Social Media Update 2016. Washington, D.C.; 2016.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taylor P. A survey of LGBT Americans: attitudes, experiences and values in changing times: Pew Research Center; 2013.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gay and lesbian adults are reading and responding to more blogs than heterosexuals [Internet]. Harris Poll Interactive 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garofalo R, Herrick A, Mustanski BS, Donenberg GR. Tip of the iceberg: young men who have sex with men, the Internet, and HIV risk. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(6):1113–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horvath KJ, Bowen AM, Williams ML. Virtual and physical venues as contexts for HIV risk among rural men who have sex with men. Health Psychol. 2006;25(2):237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Landovitz RJ, Tseng C-H, Weissman M, Haymer M, Mendenhall B, Rogers K, et al. Epidemiology, sexual risk behavior, and HIV prevention practices of men who have sex with men using GRINDR in Los Angeles, California. J Urban Health. 2013;90(4):729–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mustanski B, Lyons T, Garcia SC. Internet use and sexual health of young men who have sex with men: a mixed-methods study. Arch Sex Behav. 2011;40(2):289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chiasson MA, Hirshfield S, Remien RH, Humberstone M, Wong T, Wolitski RJ. A comparison of on-line and off-line sexual risk in men who have sex with men: an event-based on-line survey. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;44(2):235–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grosskopf NA, LeVasseur MT, Glaser DB. Use of the internet and mobile-based “apps” for sex-seeking among men who have sex with men in New York City. Am J Men’s Health. 2014;8(6):510–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rice E, Holloway I, Winetrobe H, Rhoades H, Barman-Adhikari A, Gibbs J, et al. Sex risk among young men who have sex with men who use Grindr, a smartphone geosocial networking application. J AIDS Clin Res. 2012;S4:1–8.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friedman SR, Sandoval M, Mateu-Gelabert P, Rossi D, Gwadz M, Dombrowski K, et al. Theory, measurement and hard times: some issues for HIV/AIDS research. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(6):1915–25.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fujimoto K, Wang P, Ross MW, Williams ML. Venue-mediated weak ties in multiplex HIV transmission risk networks among drug-using male sex workers and associates. J Public Health. 2015;105(6):1128–35.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schneider J, Cornwell B, Ostrow D, Michaels S, Schumm P, Laumann EO, et al. Network mixing and network influences most linked to HIV infection and risk behavior in the HIV epidemic among black men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(1):e28–36.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moreno MA, Parks MR, Zimmerman FJ, Brito TE, Christakis DA. Display of health risk behaviors on MySpace by adolescents: prevalence and associations. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2009;163(1):27–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Young SD, Rice E. Online social networking technologies, HIV knowledge, and sexual risk and testing behaviors among homeless youth. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(2):253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barman-Adhikari A, Rice E, Bender K, Lengnick-Hall R, Yoshioka-Maxwell A, Rhoades H. Social networking technology use and engagement in HIV related risk and protective behaviors among homeless youth. J Health Commun. 2016;21(7):809–17.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bull SS, Levine DK, Black SR, Schmiege SJ, Santelli J. Social media–delivered sexual health intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(5):467–74.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Frost SDW. Using sexual affiliation networks to describe the sexual structure of a population. Sex Transm Infect. 2007;83(suppl 1):i37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Binson D, Woods WJ, Pollack L, Paul J, Stall R, Catania JA. Differential HIV risk in bathhouses and public cruising areas. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(9):1482–6.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grov C, Hirshfield S, Remien RH, Humberstone M, Chiasson MA. Exploring the venue’s role in risky sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men: an event-level analysis from a national online survey in the US. Arch Sex Behav. 2013;42(2):291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grov C, Parsons JT, Bimbi DS. Sexual risk behavior and venues for meeting sex partners: an intercept survey of gay and bisexual men in LA and NYC. AIDS Behav. 2007;11(6):915–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Arnold E, Bailey MM. Constructing home and family: how the ballroom community supports African American GLBTQ youth in the face of HIV/AIDS. J Gay Lesbian Soc Serv. 2009;21(2–3):171–88.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bailey MM. Performance as intravention: ballroom culture and the politics of HIV/AIDS in detroit. Souls. 2009;11(3):253–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dickson-Gomez J, Owczarzak J, Lawrence JS, Sitzler C, Quinn K, Pearson B, et al. Beyond the ball: implications for HIV risk and prevention among the constructed families of African American men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(11):2156–68.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Young LE, Jonas AB, Michaels S, Jackson JD, Pierce ML, Schneider JA. Social-structural properties and HIV prevention among young men who have sex with men in the ballroom house and independent gay family communities. Soc Sci Med. 2017;174:26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    U.S. Census Bureau. 2005–2009 American community survey 5-year estimates. 2013. Retrieved on January 13, 2013 from http://www.census.gov/library/publications/time-series/statisticalabstracts.html.
  36. 36.
    Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl. 1997;44(2):174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Goel S, Salganik MJ. Assessing respondent-driven sampling. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(15):6743–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Khanna AS, Schumm P, Schneider JA. Facebook network structure and awareness of preexposure prophylaxis among young men who have sex with men. Ann Epidemiol. 2017;27(3):176–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Young LE, Michaels S, Jonas A, Khanna AS, Skaathun B, Morgan E, et al. Sex behaviors as social cues motivating social venue patronage among young black men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(10):2924–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wang P. ERGM extensions: models for multiple networks and bipartite networks. Exponential random graph models for social networks: theory, method and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wasserman S, Pattison P. Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: i. An introduction to Markov graphs andp. Psychometrika. 1996;61(3):401–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wasserman S, Robins G. An introduction to random graphs, dependence graphs, and p*. Models and methods in social network analysis. 2005;27:148–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Robins G, Pattison P. Interdependencies and social processes: Dependence graphs and generalized dependence structures. In: Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S, editors. Models and methods in social network analysis, vol. 28. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 192–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Robins G, Pattison P, Kalish Y, Lusher D. An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Soc Netw. 2007;29(2):173–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wang P, Robins G, Pattison P. PNet: a program for the simulation and estimation of exponential random graph models. Melbourne: University of Melbourne; 2006.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wang P, Robins GL, Pattison PE, Koskinen JH. MPNet: program for the simulation and estimation of (p*) exponential random graph models for multilevel networks. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences; 2014.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Young SD, Rivers C, Lewis B. Methods of using real-time social media technologies for detection and remote monitoring of HIV outcomes. Prev Med. 2014;63:112–5.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Garett R, Smith J, Young SD. A review of social media technologies across the global HIV Care Continuum. Curr Opin Psychol. 2016;9:56–66.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Taggart T, Grewe ME, Conserve DF, Gliwa C, Isler MR. Social media and HIV: a systematic review of uses of social media in HIV communication. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(11):248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Horvath KJ, Oakes JM, Rosser BRS, Danilenko G, Vezina H, Amico KR, et al. Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of an online peer-to-peer social support ART adherence intervention. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(6):2031–44.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Coursaris CK, Liu M. An analysis of social support exchanges in online HIV/AIDS self-help groups. Comput Hum Behav. 2009;25(4):911–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Young LE, Schumm P, Alon L, Bouris A, Ferreira M, Hill B, et al. PrEP Chicago: a randomized controlled peer change agent intervention to promote the adoption of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among young Black men who have sex with men. Clin Trials. 2017.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Latkin CA, Sherman S, Knowlton A. HIV prevention among drug users: outcome of a network-oriented peer outreach intervention. Health Psychol. 2003;22(4):332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mihailovic A, Tobin K, Latkin C. The influence of a peer-based HIV prevention intervention on conversation about HIV prevention among people who inject drugs in Baltimore, Maryland. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(10):1792–800.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Young SD, Zhao M, Tieu K, Kwok J, Gill H, Gill N. A social media-based HIV prevention intervention using peer leaders. Journal of consumer health on the Internet. 2013;17(4):353–61.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fujimoto K, Valente TW. Alcohol peer influence of participating in organized school activities: a network approach. Health Psychol. 2013;32(10):1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Patel VV, Masyukova M, Sutton D, Horvath KJ. Social media use and HIV-related risk behaviors in young Black and Latino Gay and Bi Men and transgender individuals in New York City: implications for online interventions. J Urban Health. 2016;93(2):388–99.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsay E. Young
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kayo Fujimoto
    • 3
  • John A. Schneider
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Medicine, Chicago Center for HIV EliminationUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, School of Public HealthUniversity of Texas Health Science CenterHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations