Current HIV/AIDS Reports

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 516–522 | Cite as

The Use of Technology to Advance HIV Prevention for Couples

  • Jason W. MitchellEmail author
HIV and Technology (J Simoni and K Horvath, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on HIV and Technology


The majority of HIV prevention studies and programs have targeted individuals or operated at the community level. This has also been the standard approach when incorporating technology (e.g., web-based, smartphones) to help improve HIV prevention efforts. The tides have turned for both approaches: greater attention is now focusing on couple-based HIV prevention and using technology to help improve these efforts for maximizing reach and potential impact. To assess the extent that technology has been used to help advance HIV prevention with couples, a literature review was conducted using four databases and included studies that collected data from 2000 to early 2015. Results from this review suggest that technology has primarily been used to help advance HIV prevention with couples as a tool for (1) recruitment and data collection and (2) intervention development. Challenges and limitations of conducting research (e.g., validity of dyadic data) along with future directions for how technology (e.g., mHealth, wearable sensors) can be used to advance HIV prevention with couples are then discussed. Given the growing and near ubiquitous use of the Internet and smartphones, further efforts in the realm of mHealth (e.g., applications or “apps”) and eHealth are needed to develop novel couple-focused HIV-preventive interventions.


Couples HIV prevention Technology mHealth eHealth Sensors 


Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Mitchell declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Coates TJ, Richter L, Caceres C. Behavioural strategies to reduce HIV transmission: how to make them work better. Lancet. 2008;372(9639):669–84.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grossman CI, Forsyth A, Purcell DW, et al. Advancing novel HIV prevention intervention research with MSM—meeting report. Public Health Rep. 2011;126(4):472–9.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.•
    Burton J, Darbes LA, Operario D. Couples-focused behavioral interventions for prevention of HIV: systematic review of the state of evidence. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(1):1–10. This systematic review reported that couples-focused behavioral prevention interventions reduce HIV transmission and risk behavior compared to control groups. However, the authors note that additional prevention research is needed for developing a stronger couples-focused theoretical and methodological approach as well as studies that include same-sex couples, adolescents, and young people in relationships.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.•
    El-Bassel N, Gilbert L, Witte S, et al. Couples-based HIV prevention in the United States: advantages, gaps and future directions. J Acquir Immune Defic Sundr. 2010;55(2):S98–101. This systematic review of couple-based HIV biobehavioral and biomedical prevention and intervention studies reported that among the biobehavioral studies, many were efficacious in reducing sexual- and drug-risk behaviors, increasing access to HIV testing and care, and improving adherence; the biomedical studies were found to reduce HIV incidence and viral load. The authors note the need to expand this area of research with MSM and other at-risk groups.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herbst JH, Beeker C, Mathew A, et al. The effectiveness of individual-, group-, and community-level HIV behavioral risk-reduction interventions for adult men who have sex with men. Am J Prev Med. 2007;32(4 Suppl):38–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goodreau S, Carnegie N, Vittinghoff E, et al. What drives the US and Peruvian HIV epidemics in men who have sex with men (MSM). PLoS. 2012;7(11):e50522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sullivan P, Salazar L, Buchbinder S, Sanchez T. Estimating the proportion of HIV transmissions from main sex partners among men who have sex with men in five US cities. AIDS. 2009;23:1153–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoff C, Chakravarty D, Beougher S, Neilands T, Darbes L. Relationship characteristics associated with sexual risk behavior among MSM in committed relationships. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2012;26:738–45.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitchell JW. Characteristics and allowed behaviors of gay male couples’ sexual agreements. J Sex Res. 2014;51:316–28.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mitchell JW, Harvey SM, Champeau D, Seal DW. Relationship factors associated with HIV risk among a sample of gay male couples. AIDS Behav. 2012;16:404–11.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gomez AM, Beougher SC, Chakravarty D, et al. Relationship dynamics as predictors of broken sexual agreements about outside sexual partners: implications for HIV prevention among gay couples. AIDS Behav. 2012;16:1584–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitchell JW, Harvey SM, Champeau D, Moskowitz DA, Seal DW. Relationship factors associated with gay male couples’ concordance on aspects of their sexual agreements: establishment, type, and adherence. AIDS Behav. 2012;16:1560–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitchell JW, Petroll AE. Patterns of HIV and sexually transmitted infection testing among men who have sex with men couples in the United States. Sex Transm Dis. 2012;39:871–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitchell JW, Petroll AE. Factors associated with men in HIV-negative gay couples who practiced UAI within and outside of their relationship. AIDS Behav. 2013;17:1329–37.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chakravarty D, Hoff CC, Neilands TB, Darbes LA. Rates of testing for HIV in the presence of serodiscordant UAI among HIV-negative gay men in committed relationships. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(7):1944–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mitchell JW, Petroll AE. HIV testing rates and factors associated with recent HIV testing among male couples. Sex Transm Dis. 2012;39(5):379–81.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mitchell JW, Horvath KJ. Factors associated with regular HIV testing among a sample of US MSM with HIV-negative main partners. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;64(4):417–23.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Darbes LA, Chakravarty D, Neilands TB, Beougher SC, Hoff CC. Sexual risk for HIV among gay male couples: a longitudinal study of the impact of relationship dynamics. Arch Sex Behav. 2014;43(1):47–60.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    CDC. HIV incidence. 2015. Retrieved from:
  20. 20.
    UNAIDS. Executive summary: How AIDS changed everything—MDG6: 15 years, 15 lessons of hope from the AIDS response. 2015. Retrieved from:
  21. 21.
    Painter TM. Voluntary counseling and testing for couples: a high-leverage intervention for HIV/AIDS prevention in sub-Saharan Africa. Soc Sci Med. 2001;53(11):1397–411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Allen S, Tice J, Van de Perre P, Serufilira A, Hudes E, Nsengumuremyi F, et al. Effect of serotesting with counseling on condom use and seroconversion among HIV discordant couples in Africa. BMJ. 1992;304(6842):1605–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Allen S, Meinzen-Derr J, Kautzman M, Zulu I, Trask S, Fideli U, et al. Sexual behavior of HIV discordant couples after HIV counseling and testing. AIDS. 2003;17(5):733–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kachur R, Mesnick J, Liddon N, Kapsimalis C, Habel M, David-Ferdon C, Brown K, Gloppen K, Tevendale H, Gelaude DJ, Romero L, Seitz H, Heldman AB, Schindelar J. Adolescents, technology and reducing risk for HIV, STDs and pregnancy. 2013. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from:
  25. 25.
    Olson KE, O’Brien MA, Rogers WA, Charness N. Diffusion of technology: frequency of use for younger and older adults. Ageing Intl. 2011;36(1):123–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Simuforosa M. The impact of modern technology on the educational attainment of adolescents. Intl J Educ Res. 2013;1(9):1–8.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lenhart A. Pew Research Center. Teen, social media and technology overview 2015. 2015. Retrieved from:
  28. 28.
    Perrin A, Duggan M. Pew Research Center. Americans’ Internet access: 2000–2015. 2015. Retrieved from:
  29. 29.
    Martinez O, Wu E, Shultz AZ, et al. Still a hard-to-reach population? Using social media to recruit gay Latino couples for an HIV prevention adaptation study. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(4):e113.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    NIH RePORT. Providing online counseling for home-based HIV testing (PI Stephenson R, R01HD078131-01A1). 2015. Retrieved from:
  31. 31.
    National Institutes of Health. Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (RePORT). 2015. Retrieved from:
  32. 32.
    NIH RePORT. Development of a HIV prevention toolkit for at-risk HIV-negative male couples (PI Mitchell J, R34MH102098). 2015. Retrieved from:
  33. 33.•
    Smith A, Duggan M. Pew Research Center. Online dating & relationships. 2013. Retrieved from: Many American adults use online dating websites and mobile applications (app) to find romantic partners; this is particularly true among those who are in their twenties, thirties and forties years of age. As such, attitudes toward online dating are becoming more positive over time.
  34. 34.•
    Lenhart A, Duggan M. Pew Research Center. Couples, the Internet, and social media. 2014. Retrieved from: This report describes how American couples have used digital technology to manage their life and relationships. In particular, the findings describe the overall impact that technology has had on long-term relationships, how couples have used technology as a source of support and communication, and in instances when technology has become a source of tension within couples’ relationships.
  35. 35.
    Gass K, Hoff CC, Stephenson R, et al. Sexual agreements in the partnerships of Internet-using men who have sex with men. AIDS Care. 2012;24(10):1255–63.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Warren JT, Harvey SM, Agnew CR. One love: explicit monogamy agreements among heterosexual young adult couples at increased risk of sexually transmitted infections. J Sex Res. 2012;49(2–3):282–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Drumright LN, Gorbach PM, Holmes KK. Do people really know their sex partners? Concurrency, knowledge of partner behavior, and sexually transmitted infections within partnerships. Sex Transm Infect. 2004;31:437–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    El-Bassel N, Witte S, Gilbert L, Wu E, Chang M, Hill J, et al. The efficacy of a relationship-based HIVSTD prevention program for heterosexual couples. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(6):963–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    CDC. Effective interventions: HIV prevention that works. 2015. Retrieved from:
  40. 40.
    NIH RePORT. Development of a couple-based mobile health intervention for enhancing HIV care engagement outcomes (PI Tan J, K01MH106416-01A1). 2015. Retrieved from:
  41. 41.
    Newcomb ME, Mustanski B. Diaries for observation or intervention of health behaviors: factors that predict reactivity in a sexual diary study of men who have sex with men. Ann Behav Med. 2014;47(3):325–34.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Newcomb ME, Mustanski B. Cognitive influences on sexual risk and risk appraisals in men who have sex with men. Health Psychol. 2014;33(7):690–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Glick SN, Winer RL, Golden MR. Web-based sex diaries and young adult men who have sex with men: assessing feasibility, reactivity, and data agreement. Arch Sex Behav. 2013;42(7):1327–35.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hensel DJ, Rosenberger JG, Novak DS, Reece M. Sexual event-level characteristics of condom use during anal intercourse among HIV-negative men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis. 2012;39(7):550–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Boone MR, Cook SH, Wilson P. Substance use and sexual risk behavior in HIV-positive men who have sex with men: an episode-level analysis. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(5):1883–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Grov C, Golub SA, Mustanski B, Parsons JT. Sexual compulsivity, state affect, and sexual risk behavior in a daily diary study of gay and bisexual men. Psychol Addict Behav. 2010;24(3):487–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wilson PA, Cook S, McGaskey J, Rowe M, Dennis N. Situational predictors of sexual risk episodes among men with HIV who have sex with men. Sex Transm Infect. 2008;84(6):506–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mustanski B. Moderating effects of age on the alcohol and sexual risk taking association: an online daily diary study of men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2008;12(1):118–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mustanski B. The influence of state and trait affect on HIV risk behaviors: a daily diary study of MSM. Health Psychol. 2007;26(5):618–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mustanski BS. Are sexual partners met online associated with HIV/STI risk behaviours? Retrospective and daily diary data in conflict. AIDS Care. 2007;19(6):822–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Reynolds GL, Fisher DG, Laurenceau JP, Fortenberry JD. An electronic daily diary study of anal intercourse in drug-using women. AIDS Behav. 2015.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Garry M, Sharman SJ, Feldman J, Marlatt GA, Loftus EF. Examining memory for heterosexual college students' sexual experiences using an electronic mail diary. Health Psychol. 2002;21(6):629–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rhodes SD, Hergenrather KC, Duncan J, Ramsey B, Yee LJ, Wilkin AM. Using community-based participatory research to develop a chat room-based HIV prevention intervention for gay men. Prog Commun Health Partnersh. 2007;1(2):175–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fernández MI, Warren JC, Varga LM, Prado G, Hernandez N, Bowen GS. Cruising in cyber space: comparing Internet chat room versus community venues for recruiting Hispanic men who have sex with men to participate in prevention studies. J Ethn Subst Abuse. 2007;6(2):143–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rhodes SD, Hergenrather KC, Yee LJ, Ramsey B. Comparing MSM in the southeastern United States who participated in an HIV prevention chat room-based outreach intervention and those who did not: how different are the baseline HIV-risk profiles? Health Educ Res. 2008;23(1):180–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rhodes SD, Hergenrather KC, Duncan J, Vissman AT, Miller C, Wilkin AM, et al. A pilot intervention utilizing Internet chat rooms to prevent HIV risk behaviors among men who have sex with men. Public Health Rep. 2010;125 Suppl 1:29–37.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Berke EM, Choudbury T, Ali S, Rabbi M. Objective measurement of sociability and activity: mobile sensing in the community. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(4):344–50.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Stanley KG, Osgood ND. The potential of sensor-based monitoring as a tool for health care, health promotion, and research. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(4):296–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Estrin D, Sim I. Open mHealth architecture: an engine for health care innovation. Science. 2010;330(6005):759–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Health Sciences, Miller School of MedicineUniversity of MiamiMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations