Few studies have attempted to understand relationship-level factors impacting PrEP utilization among men who have sex with men (MSM). This study examined associations between relationship power and PrEP use among 826 MSM participating in a cross-sectional, Internet-based survey. The results of our analysis indicate that decision-making dominance was positively associated with PrEP use among MSM, but the association between relationship control/overall relationship power and PrEP use was inconclusive. Furthermore, when examining specific types of decision-making dominance, equal and greater dominance compared to one’s partner regarding types of sexual activity engaged in, as well as dominance more generally, were positively associated with PrEP use. However, the relationships between decision-making dominance related to condom use/sexual initiation and PrEP use were inconclusive. This study suggests that the promotion of egalitarian relationships—as well as other relationship-level determinants—should be an essential component of biobehavioral interventions targeting this population.
PrEP Pre-exposure prophylaxis HIV prevention Relationship power MSM
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Support for this work was provided to Dr. Braksmajer by the University of Rochester Center for AIDS Research (NIH P30AI078498). The authors would like to thank the University of Rochester Interdisciplinary Sexual Health and HIV Research Group, as well as the men who agreed to participate in the research, without whom this study would not have been possible.
Support for this work was provided to Dr. Braksmajer by the University of Rochester Center for AIDS Research (NIH P30AI078498) and the University of Rochester School of Nursing.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Amy Braksmajer declares that she has no conflict of interest. Chen Zhang declares that she has no conflict of interest. James M. McMahon declares that he has no conflict of interest.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Spinner CD, Boesecke C, Zink A, et al. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): a review of current knowledge of oral systemic HIV PrEP in humans. Infection. 2016;44(2):151–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamitani E, Wichser ME, Adegbite AH, et al. Increasing prevalence of self-reported HIV preexposure prophylaxis use in published surveys: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS. 2018;32(17):2633–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Okafor CN, Gorbach PM, Ragsdale A, Quinn B, Shoptaw S. Correlates of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among men who have sex with Men (MSM) in Los Angeles, California. J Urban Health. 2017;94(5):710–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golub SA, Fikslin RA, Goldberg MH, Peña SM, Radix A. Predictors of PrEP uptake among patients with equivalent access. AIDS Behav. 2019;23(7):1917–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojikutu BO, Bogart LM, Higgins-Biddle M, et al. Facilitators and barriers to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among black individuals in the United States: results from the National Survey on HIV in the Black Community (NSHBC). AIDS Behav. 2018;22(11):3576–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh JL. Applying the information–motivation–behavioral skills model to understand PrEP intentions and use among men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2018;23(7):1904–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan PS, Salazar L, Buchbinder S, Sanchez TH. Estimating the proportion of HIV transmissions from main sex partners among men who have sex with men in five US cities. AIDS. 2009;23(9):1153–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell JW, Champeau D, Harvey SM. Actor–partner effects of demographic and relationship factors associated with HIV risk within gay male couples. Arch Sex Behav. 2013;42(7):1337–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin SL, Zakaras JM, Campbell C, et al. Relationship power among same-sex male couples in New York and San Francisco: laying the groundwork for sexual risk reduction interventions focused on interpersonal power. J Sex Res. 2017;54(7):923–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pulerwitz J, Gortmaker SL, DeJong W. Measuring sexual relationship power in HIV/STD research. Sex Roles. 2000;42:637–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey SM, Bird ST, Galavotti C, Duncan EAW, Greenberg D. Relationship power, sexual decision making and condom use among women at risk for HIV/STDs. Women Health. 2002;36(4):69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon JM, Volpe EM, Klostermann K, Trabold N, Xue Y. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the Sexual Relationship Power Scale in HIV/AIDS research. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44(2):267–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neilands TB, Dworkin SL, Chakravarty D, et al. Development and validation of the power imbalance in Couples Scale. Arch Sex Behav. 2018;48(3):763–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell MS, Cropanzano RS, Quisenberry DM. Social exchange theory, exchange resources, and interpersonal relationships: A modest resolution of theoretical difficulties. In: Tornblom K, Kazemi A, editors. Handbook of social resource theory. Springer: New York; 2012. p. 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar