Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining HIV Risk Multiplexity: A Social Network Analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Risk multiplexity (i.e., overlap in drug-use, needle exchange and sexual relations) is a known risk factor for HIV. However, little is known about predictors of multiplexity. This study uses egocentric data from the Colorado Springs study to examine how individual, behavioral and social network factors influence engagement in multiplex risk behavior. Analyses revealed that compared to Whites, Hispanics were significantly more likely to engage in risk multiplexity and Blacks less so. Respondents who were similar to each other (e.g., in terms of race) had significantly higher odds of being in risk multiplex relationships, and respondents’ risk perceptions and network size were significantly associated with engaging in multiplex risk behaviors. Findings from interaction analysis showed the effect of knowing someone with HIV on the odds of multiplexity depends partly on whether respondents’ know their HIV status. Findings suggest that demographics, HIV behaviors and network factors impact engagement in multiplex risk behaviors, highlighting the need for multi-level interventions aimed at reducing HIV risk behavior.

Resumen

La multiplexidad de riesgo (es decir, la superposición en el uso de drogas, el intercambio de agujas y las relaciones sexuales) es un factor de riesgo conocido para el VIH. Sin embargo, se sabe poco sobre los predictores de multiplexidad. Este estudio utiliza datos egocéntricos del estudio de Colorado Springs para examinar cómo los factores individuales, conductuales y de las redes sociales influyen en el compromiso en el comportamiento de riesgo múltiple. Los análisis revelaron que, en comparación con los blancos, los hispanos tenían una probabilidad significativamente mayor de participar en la multiplexidad de riesgo y los negros lo eran menos. Los encuestados que eran similares entre sí (por ejemplo, en términos de raza) tenían probabilidades significativamente mayores de estar en relaciones multiplex de riesgo, y las percepciones de riesgo y el tamaño de la red de los encuestados se asociaron significativamente con comportamientos de riesgo múltiples. Los resultados del análisis de interacción mostraron que el efecto de conocer a alguien con VIH sobre la probabilidad de multiplexidad depende en parte de si los encuestados conocen su estado de VIH. Los hallazgos sugieren que los datos demográficos, los comportamientos relacionados con el VIH y los factores de red influyen en la participación en comportamientos de riesgo múltiples, destacando la necesidad de intervenciones con varios niveles destinadas a reducir las conductas de riesgo del VIH.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Latkin C, Mandell W, Vlahov D, Knowlton A, Oziemkowska M, Celentano D. Personal network characteristics as antecedents to needle-sharing and shooting gallery attendance. Soc Netw. 1995;17(3):219–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Costenbader EC, Astone NM, Latkin CA. The dynamics of injection drug users’ personal networks and HIV risk behaviors. Addiction. 2006;101(7):1003–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Davey-Rothwell M, Latkin C. An examination of perceived norms and exchanging sex for money or drugs among women injectors in Baltimore, MD, USA. Int J STD AIDS. 2008;19(1):47–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Barrington C, Latkin C, Sweat MD, Moreno L, Ellen J, Kerrigan D. Talking the talk, walking the walk: social network norms, communication patterns, and condom use among the male partners of female sex workers in La Romana, Dominican Republic. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(11):2037–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Peterson J, Rothenberg R, Kraft J, Beeker C, Trotter R. Perceived condom norms and HIV risks among social and sexual networks of young African American men who have sex with men. Health Educ Res. 2008;24(1):119–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol. 2001;27(1):415–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Newcomb ME, Mustanski B. Racial differences in same-race partnering and the effects of sexual partnership characteristics on HIV risk in MSM: a prospective sexual diary study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;62(3):329–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Miller M, Neaigus A. Networks, resources and risk among women who use drugs. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(6):967–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kapadia F, Latka M, Hudson S, Golub E, Campbell J, Bailey S, et al. Correlates of consistent condom use with main partners by partnership patterns among young adult male injection drug users from five US cities. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;91:56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Corbett AM, Dickson-Gómez J, Hilario H, Weeks MR. A little thing called love: condom use in high-risk primary heterosexual relationships. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2009;41(4):218–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Strathdee SA, Sherman SG. The role of sexual transmission of HIV infection among injection and non-injection drug users. J Urban Health. 2003;80:7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Riehman KS, Wechsberg WM, Francis SA, Moore M, Morgan-Lopez A. Discordance in monogamy beliefs, sexual concurrency, and condom use among young adult substance-involved couples: implications for risk of sexually transmitted infections. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(11):677–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shannon K, Strathdee SA, Shoveller J, Rusch M, Kerr T, Tyndall MW. Structural and environmental barriers to condom use negotiation with clients among female sex workers: implications for HIV-prevention strategies and policy. Am J Public Health Res. 2009;99(4):659–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Roberts ST, Kennedy BL. Why are young college women not using condoms? Their perceived risk, drug use, and developmental vulnerability may provide important clues to sexual risk. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2006;20(1):32–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rudolph AE, Crawford ND, Latkin C, Lewis CF. Multiplex relationships and HIV: implications for network-based interventions. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(4):1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Klovdahl AS, Potterat JJ, Woodhouse DE, Muth JB, Muth SQ, Darrow WW. Social networks and infectious disease: the Colorado Springs study. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38(1):79–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Potter JM, Woodhouse DE, Muth S, et al. Network dynamism: history and lessons of the Colorado Springs study. In: Morris M, editor. Network epidemiology: a handbook for survey design and data collection. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 87–114.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rothenberg RB, Woodhouse DE, Potterat JJ, Muth SQ, Darrow WW, Klovdahl AS. Social networks in disease transmission: the Colorado Springs study. NIDA Res Monogr. 1995;151:3–19.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. IBM Corp. SPSS Statistics for windows. Version 24.0 ed. Armonk, NY 2016.

  20. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: Release 14. 14 ed. College Station, TX: StataCorp; 2014.

  21. Piot P, Bartos M, Larson H, Zewdie D, Mane P. Coming to terms with complexity: a call to action for HIV prevention. Lancet. 2008;372(9641):845–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States-2014: a clinical guideline. 2014.

  23. Rosenstock IM. Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Educ Monogr. 1974;2(4):328–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sheeran P, Harris PR, Epton T. Does heightening risk appraisals change people’s intentions and behavior? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Psychol Bull. 2014;140(2):511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ijumba K, Gamieldien R, Myer L, Morroni C. Sexual risk behaviours are influenced by knowing someone with HIV/AIDS. S Afr Med J. 2008;94(7):522.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Macintyre K, Brown L, Sosler S. “It’s not what you know, but who you knew”: Examining the relationship between behavior change and AIDS mortality in Africa. AIDS Educ Prev. 2001;13(2):160–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Camlin CS, Chimbwete CE. Does knowing someone with AIDS affect condom use? An analysis from South Africa. AIDS Educ Prev. 2003;15(3):231–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Marks G, Crepaz N, Senterfitt JW, Janssen RS. Meta-analysis of high-risk sexual behavior in persons aware and unaware they are infected with HIV in the United States: implications for HIV prevention programs. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005;39(4):446–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fonner VA, Denison J, Kennedy CE, O’Reilly K, Sweat M. Voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) for changing HIV-related risk behavior in developing countries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;9:001224.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Williams C, Eisenberg M, Becher J, Davis-Vogel A, Fiore D, Metzger D. Racial disparities in HIV prevalence and risk behaviors among injection drug users and members of their risk networks. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63:S90–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the support of Stephen Q Muth, Director Quintus-ential Solutions, for help with generation and processing of the network dataset, as well as Jamile Tellez Lieberman for her Spanish translation of the abstract.

Funding

This research was not supported by any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, 3215 Market St, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Marisa Felsher

  2. Department of Sociology, Drexel University, 3600 Market St, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Emmanuel Koku

Authors
  1. Marisa Felsher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emmanuel Koku
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marisa Felsher.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Felsher, M., Koku, E. Explaining HIV Risk Multiplexity: A Social Network Analysis. AIDS Behav 22, 3500–3507 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-018-2120-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-018-2120-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation