AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 21, Issue 12, pp 3549–3556 | Cite as

Dual Incarceration and Condom Use in Committed Relationships

  • Allison K. Groves
  • WeiHai Zhan
  • Ana Maria del Río-González
  • Alana Rosenberg
  • Kim M. Blankenship
Original Paper
  • 126 Downloads

Abstract

Incarceration fractures relationship ties and has been associated with unprotected sex. Relationships where both individuals have a history of incarceration (dual incarceration) may face even greater disruption and involve more unprotected sex than relationships where only one individual has been incarcerated. We sought to determine whether dual incarceration is associated with condom use, and whether this association varies by relationship type. Data come from 499 sexual partnerships reported by 210 individuals with a history of incarceration. We used generalized estimating equations to examine whether dual incarceration was associated with condom use after controlling for individual and relationship characteristics. Interaction terms between dual incarceration and relationship commitment were also examined. Among currently committed relationships, dual incarceration was associated with inconsistent condom use (AOR: 4.33; 95% CI 1.02, 18.45). Dual incarceration did not affect condom use in never committed relationships. Reducing incarcerations may positively impact committed relationships and subsequently decrease HIV-related risk.

Keywords

Dual incarceration Inconsistent condom use Sexual partner Commitment 

Resumen

El encarcelamiento fractura los lazos relacionales y ha sido asociado con relaciones sexuales sin protección. Es posible que las relaciones en las que ambos individuos tienen una historia de encarcelamiento (encarcelamiento dual) enfrenten aún mayor disrupción e involucren más sexo sin protección que las relaciones en las que sólo un individuo ha sido encarcelado. Nuestro objetivo fue determinar si el encarcelamiento dual está asociado con el uso de condón, y si esta asociación varía según el tipo de relación. Los datos provienen de 499 relaciones sexuales reportadas por 210 individuos con historia de encarcelamiento. Usamos ecuaciones de estimación generalizadas para examinar si el encarcelamiento dual estaba asociado con el uso de condón luego de controlar por características individuales y de la relación. También analizamos los términos de interacción entre el encarcelamiento dual y el compromiso en la relación. En relaciones comprometidas en el presente, el encarcelamiento dual estaba asociado con uso inconsistente del condón (AOR: 4.33; IC 95%: 1.02, 18.45). En relaciones nunca comprometidas, el encarcelamiento dual no afectó el uso de condón. Reducir el encarcelamiento puede tener un impacto positivo en relaciones comprometidas y, consecuentemente, reducir el riesgo de VIH.

Palabras clave

Encarcelamiento dual uso inconsistente del condón pareja sexual compromiso 

Notes

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we would like to acknowledge our participants for their willingness to be a part of this research study and to share intimate details about their lives.

Funding

This research study was funded by the U.S. National Institute of Health (R01DA025021; Kim Blankenship, Principal Investigator). This research has also been facilitated by the services and resources provided by the District of Columbia Center for AIDS Research, an NIH funded program (AI117970), which is supported by the following NIH Co-Funding and Participating Institutes and Centers: NIAID, NCI, NICHD, NHLBI, NIDA, NIMH, NIA, FIC, NIGMS, NIDDK, and OAR. Additional support was received from Yale University’s Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS (National Institute of Mental Health Grant No. P30MH062294, Paul D. Cleary, Ph.D., Principal Investigator). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

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 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.

References

  1. 1.
    Kiarie JN, Farquhar C, Richardson BA, Kabura MN, John FN, Nduati RW, et al. Domestic violence and prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1. AIDS. 2006;20(13):1763.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wildeman C, Muller C. Mass imprisonment and inequality in health and family life. Ann Rev Law Soc Sci. 2012;8:11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Council R-EP. Report of the re-entry policy council: Charting the safe and successful return of prisoners to the community: Council of State Governments; 2005.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grinstead OA, Zack B, Faigeles B, Grossman N, Blea L. Reducing postrelease HIV risk among male prison inmates a peer-led intervention. Crim Just Behav. 1999;26(4):453–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blankenship KM, Smoyer AB. Between spaces: understanding movement to and from prison as an HIV risk factor. In: Sanders B, Thomas YF, Griffin Deeds B, editors. HIV and health: intersections of criminal justice and public health concerns. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 207–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Epperson MW, El-Bassel N, Chang M, Gilbert L. Examining the temporal relationship between criminal justice involvement and sexual risk behaviors among drug-involved men. J Urban Health. 2010;87(2):324–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ricks JM, Crosby RA, Terrell I. Elevated sexual risk behaviors among postincarcerated young African American males in the South. Am J Men’s Health. 2015;9(2):132–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clear TR, Rose DR, Waring E, Scully K. Coercive mobility and crime: a preliminary examination of concentrated incarceration and social disorganization. Just Quart. 2003;20(1):33–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clear TR. Imprisoning communities: how mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khan MR, Doherty IA, Schoenbach VJ, Taylor EM, Epperson MW, Adimora AA. Incarceration and high-risk sex partnerships among men in the United States. J Urban Health. 2009;86(4):584–601.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Comfort M. Doing time together: love and family in the shadow of the prison. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooper HL, Caruso B, Barham T, Embry V, Dauria E, Clark CD, et al. Partner incarceration and African–American women’s sexual relationships and risk: a longitudinal qualitative study. J Urban Health. 2015;92(3):527–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harman JJ, Smith VE, Egan LC. The impact of incarceration on intimate relationships. Crim Just Behav. 2007;34(6):794–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Swartzendruber A, Brown JL, Sales JM, Murray CC, DiClemente RJ. Sexually transmitted infections, sexual risk behavior, and intimate partner violence among African American adolescent females with a male sex partner recently released from incarceration. J Adolesc Health. 2012;51(2):156–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Epperson MW, Khan MR, El-Bassel N, Wu E, Gilbert L. A longitudinal study of incarceration and HIV risk among methadone maintained men and their primary female partners. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(2):347–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hanley JA, Negassa A, Forrester JE. Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: an orientation. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157(4):364–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Institute S. SAS/GRAPH 9.1 Reference: SAS Institute; 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Comfort M, Grinstead O, McCartney K, Bourgois P, Knight K. “You can’t do nothing in this damn place”: sex and intimacy among couples with an incarcerated male partner. J Sex Res. 2005;42(1):3–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Blankenship KM, Smoyer AB, Bray SJ, Mattocks K. Black-white disparities in HIV/AIDS: the role of drug policy and the corrections system. J Health Care Poor Unders. 2005;16(4):140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ, Doherty IA. HIV and African Americans in the southern United States: sexual networks and social context. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(7):S39–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ, Floris-Moore MA. Ending the epidemic of heterosexual HIV transmission among African Americans. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(5):468–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thomas JC, Torrone E. Incarceration as forced migration: effects on selected community health outcomes. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(10):1762–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johnson RC, Raphael S. The effects of male incarceration dynamics on acquired immune deficiency syndrome infection rates among African American women and men. J Law Econ. 2009;52(2):251–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pouget ER, Kershaw TS, Ickovics JR, Blankenship KM. Associations of sex ratios and male incarceration rates with multiple opposite-sex partners: potential social determinants of HIV/STI transmission. Public Health Rep. 2010;125(4):70–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Binswanger IA, Redmond N, Steiner JF, Hicks LS. Health disparities and the criminal justice system: an agenda for further research and action. J Urban Health. 2012;89(1):98–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Community Health and PreventionDrexel Dornsife School of Public HealthPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Connecticut Department of Children and FamiliesHartfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of Sociology, Center on Health, Risk and SocietyAmerican UniversityWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations