AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 1239–1252 | Cite as

Should I Convince My Partner to Go on Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP)? The Role of Personal and Relationship Factors on PrEP-Related Social Control among Gay and Bisexual Men

  • Steven A. John
  • Tyrel J. Starks
  • H. Jonathon Rendina
  • Christian Grov
  • Jeffrey T. Parsons
Original Paper


An estimated 35–68% of new HIV infections among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) are transmitted through main partnerships. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly effective in reducing HIV seroconversion, yet PrEP uptake has been modest. PrEP-naïve GBM with HIV-negative, PrEP-naïve main partners enrolled in One Thousand Strong (n = 409), a U.S. national cohort of GBM, were asked about (1) the importance of partner PrEP use and (2) their willingness to convince their partner to initiate PrEP. On average, participants thought partner PrEP was only modestly important and were only moderately willing to try to convince their partner to initiate PrEP. Personal PrEP uptake willingness and intentions were the strongest indicators of partner PrEP outcomes. Being in a monogamish relationship arrangement (as compared to a monogamous arrangement) and the experience of intimate partner violence victimization were associated with increased willingness to persuade a partner to initiate PrEP.


Pre-exposure prophylaxis Men who have sex with men Same-sex couples Couples interdependence theory Intimate partner violence 


Se estima que entre un 35% y un 68% de las nuevas infecciones por VIH en varones homosexuales, bisexuales y otros hombres que mantienen relaciones sexuales con hombres (HSH) se transmite a través de la pareja principal. Aunque la Profilaxis pre-Exposición (PrEP) es altamente efectiva en la reducción de la seroconversión al VIH, el uso de la PrEP ha sido limitado. Se les preguntó a HBH naifs a la PrEP con parejas principales VIH-negativas y naifs a la PrEP reclutados para el estudio “One Thousand Strong” (n = 409), una cohorte nacional de HSH, sobre 1) la importancia de que su pareja usara PrEP y 2) su voluntad de convencer a su pareja de que empezara a usar PrEP. En promedio, los participantes consideraron que era sólo moderadamente importante que su pareja tomara PrEP, y estuvieron sólo moderadamente dispuestos a tratar de convencer a su pareja de que empezara a tomar PrEP. Voluntad e intención de uso personal de la PrEP fueron los indicadores más robustos de los resultados del uso de la PrEP en la pareja. El estar en una relación no-monógama (comparado con una relación monógama), y el tener experiencias de victimización íntima con la pareja se asociaron con una mayor voluntad de persuadir a la pareja de que comience a usar PrEP.



One Thousand Strong study was funded by a research grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01-DA036466; J. T. Parsons & C. Grov, MPIs). H. J. Rendina was supported by a Career Development Award from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (K01-DA039030; H. J. Rendina, PI). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of the other members of the One Thousand Strong Study Team (Ana Ventuneac, Demetria Cain, Mark Pawson, Ruben Jimenez, Chloe Mirzayi, Brett Millar, Raymond Moody, and Thomas Whitfield) and other staff from the Center for HIV/AIDS Educational Studies and Training (Chris Hietikko, Andrew Cortopassi, Brian Salfas, Doug Keeler, Chris Murphy, Carlos Ponton, and Paula Bertone). We would also like to thank the staff at Community Marketing Inc. (David Paisley, Heather Torch, and Thomas Roth). Finally, we thank Jeffrey Schulden at NIDA, the anonymous reviewers of this manuscript, and all of our participants in the One Thousand Strong study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The 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.


  1. 1.
    CDC. HIV surveillance report, 2015, Volume 27. February 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goodreau SM, Carnegie NB, Vittinghoff E, et al. What drives the US and Peruvian HIV epidemics in men who have sex with men (MSM)? PLoS ONE. 2012;7(11):e50522.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    USFDA. FDA approves first medication to reduce HIV risk. 2012. Accessed 3 Apr 2015.
  5. 5.
    Volk JE, Marcus JL, Phengrasamy T, et al. No new HIV infections with increasing use of HIV preexposure prophylaxis in a clinical practice setting. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(10):1601–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liu AY, Cohen SE, Vittinghoff E, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection integrated with municipal- and community-based sexual health services. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(1):75–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grant RM, Koester KA. What people want from sex and preexposure prophylaxis. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2016;11(1):3–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Strauss BB, Greene GJ, Phillips G, et al. Exploring patterns of awareness and use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among young men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1288–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hood JE, Buskin SE, Dombrowski JC, et al. Dramatic increase in preexposure prophylaxis use among MSM in Washington state. AIDS. 2016;30(3):515–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parsons JT, Rendina HJ, Whitfield TH, Grov C. Familiarity with and preferences for oral and long-acting injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a national sample of gay and bisexual men in the US. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(7):1390–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grov C, Rendina HJ, Whitfield TH, Ventuneac A, Parsons JT. Changes in familiarity with and willingness to take preexposure prophylaxis in a longitudinal study of highly sexually active gay and bisexual men. LGBT Health. 2016;3(4):252–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelley CF, Kahle E, Siegler A, et al. Applying a PrEP continuum of care for men who have sex with men in Atlanta, Georgia. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(10):1590–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parsons JT, Rendina HJ, Lassiter JM, Whitfield THF, Starks TJ, Grov C. Uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a national cohort of gay and bisexual men in the United States: the motivational PrEP cascade. J Acq Immun Def Synd. 2017;74(3):285–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rendina HJ, Whitfield THF, Grov CS. T.J., Parsons JT. Distinguishing hypothetical willingness from behavioral intentions to initiate HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): findings from a large cohort of gay and bisexual men in the U.S. Soc Sci Med. 2017;172:115–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    CDC. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infectionin the United States 2014. A clinical practice guideline. 2014. Accessed 25 Apr 2016.
  16. 16.
    Starks TJ, Grov C, Parsons JT. Sexual compulsivity and interpersonal functioning: sexual relationship quality and sexual health in gay relationships. Health Psychol. 2013;32(10):1047–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rusbult CE, Van Lange PA. Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annu Rev Psychol. 2003;54:351–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lewis MA, Gladstone E, Schmal S, Darbes LA. Health-related social control and relationship interdependence among gay couples. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(4):488–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoff CC, Beougher SC. Sexual agreements among gay male couples. Arch Sex Behav. 2010;39:774–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grov C, Starks TJ, Rendina HJ, Parsons JT. Rules about casual sex partners, relationship satisfaction, and HIV risk in partnered gay and bisexual men. J Sex Marital Ther. 2014;40(2):105–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoff CC, Beougher SC, Chakravarty D, Darbes LA, Neilands TB. Relationship characteristics and motivations behind agreements among gay male couples: differences by agreement type and couple serostatus. AIDS Care. 2010;22(7):827–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parsons JT, Starks TJ, DuBois S, Grov C, Golub SA. Alternatives to monogamy among gay male couples in a community survey: implications for mental health and sexual risk. Arch Sex Behav. 2013;42(2):303–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mimiaga MJ, Closson EF, Kothary V, Mitty JA. Sexual partnerships and considerations for HIV antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis utilization among high-risk substance using men who have sex with men. Arch Sex Behav. 2014;43(1):99–106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stephenson R, White D, Darbes L, Hoff CC, Sullivan P. HIV testing behaviors and perceptions of risk of HIV infection among MSM with main partners. AIDS Behav. 2015;19:553–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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(2):404–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gamarel KE, Golub SA. Intimacy motivations and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adoption intentions among HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM) in romantic relationships. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49(2):177–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stephenson R, Freeland R, Finneran C. Intimate partner violence and condom negotiation efficacy among gay and bisexual men in Atlanta. Sex Health. 2016;13(4):366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Koester KA, Liu A, Eden C, et al. Acceptability of drug detection monitoring among participants in an open-label pre-exposure prophylaxis study. AIDS Care. 2015;27(10):1199–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goldenberg T, Stephenson R, Freeland R, Finneran C, Hadley C. ‘Struggling to be the alpha’: sources of tension and intimace partner violece in same-sex relationships between men. Cult Health Sex. 2016;18(8):875–89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rendina HJ, Moody RL, Ventuneac A, Grov C, Parsons JT. Aggregate and event-level associations between substance use and sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men: comparing retrospective and prospective data. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;154:199–207.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parsons JT, Lelutiu-Weinberger C, Botsko M, Golub SA. Predictors of day-level sexual risk for young gay and bisexual men. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(4):1465–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parsons JT, Starks TJ. Drug use and sexual arrangements among gay couples: frequency, interdependence, and associations with sexual risk. Arch Sex Behav. 2014;43(1):89–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Drumright LN, Patterson TL, Strathdee SA. Club drugs as causal risk factors for HIV acquisition among men who have sex with men: a review. Subst Use Misuse. 2006;41(10–12):1551–601.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Grov C, Parsons JT, Bimbi DS. In the shadows of a prevention campaign: sexual risk behavior in the absence of crystal methamphetamine. AIDS Educ Prev. 2008;20(1):42–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oldenburg CE, Mitty JA, Biello KB, et al. Differences in attitudes about HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis use among stimulant versus alcohol using men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(7):1451–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Grov C, Cain D, Whitfield TH, et al. Recruiting a U.S. national sample of HIV-negative gay and bisexual men to complete at-home self-administered HIV/STI testing and surveys: challenges and opportunities. Sex Res Soc Policy. 2016;13(1):1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Grov C, Cain D, Rendina HJ, Ventuneac A, Parsons JT. Characteristics associated with urethral and rectal gonorrhea and chlamydia diagnoses in a US national sample of gay and bisexual men: results from the One Thousand Strong panel. Sex Transm Dis. 2016;43(3):165–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Parsons JT, Starks TJ, Gamarel KE, Grov C. Non-monogamy and sexual relationship quality among same-sex male couples. J Fam Psychol. 2012;26(5):669–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reinert DF, Allen JP. The alcohol use disorders identification test: an update of research findings. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2007;31(2):185–99.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Skinner HA. The drug abuse screening test. Addict Behav. 1991;7:363–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bohn MJ, Babor TF, Kranzler HR, editors. Validity of the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10) in inpatient substance abusers: problems of drug dependence. In: 53rd Annual Scientific Meeting from the Committee on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc; 1991. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services; 1992.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Greenwood GL, Relf MV, Huang B, Pollack LM, Canchola JA, Catania JA. Battering victimization among a probability-based sample of men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(12):1964–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stall R, Mills TC, Williamson J, et al. Association of co-occurring psychosocial health problems and increased vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among urban men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(6):939–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sullivan PS, White D, Rosenberg ES, et al. Safety and acceptability of couples HIV testing and counseling for US men who have sex with men: a randomized prevention study. J Int Assoc Physicians AIDS Care. 2014;13(2):135–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Duncan DT, Goedel WC, Stults CB, et al. A study of intimate partner violence, substance abuse, and sexual risk behaviors among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in a sample of geosocial-networking smartphone application users. Am J Mens Health. 2016.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stults CB, Javdani S, Greenbaum CA, Kapadia F, Halkitis PN. Intimate partner violence and sex among young men who have sex with men. J Adolesc Health. 2016;58(2):215–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.10.008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Beymer MR, Weiss RE, Halkitis PN, et al. Disparities within the disparity-determining HIV risk factors among latino gay and bisexual men attending a community-based clinic in Los Angeles. CA. J Acq Immun Def Synd. 2016;73(2):237–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Goldenberg T, Finneran C, Andes KL, Stephenson R. ‘Sometimes people let love conquer them’: how love, intimacy, and trust in relationships between men who have sex with men influence perceptions of sexual risk and sexual decision-making. Cult Health Sex. 2015;17(5):607–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ware NC, Wyatt MA, Haberer JE, et al. What’s love got to do with it? Explaining adherence to oral antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-serodiscordant couples. J Acq Immun Def Synd. 2012;59(5):463–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven A. John
    • 1
  • Tyrel J. Starks
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • H. Jonathon Rendina
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Christian Grov
    • 1
    • 4
  • Jeffrey T. Parsons
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for HIV/AIDS Educational Studies & TrainingHunter College of the City University of New York (CUNY)New YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyHunter College of the City University of New York (CUNY)New YorkUSA
  3. 3.Doctoral Program in Health Psychology and Clinical ScienceThe Graduate Center of CUNYNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health PolicyNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations