AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1870–1884 | Cite as

Inter-partner and Temporal Variations in the Perception of Sexual Risk for HIV

  • Tamar Goldenberg
  • Lynae A. Darbes
  • Rob Stephenson
Original Paper

Abstract

This study uses longitudinal qualitative methods to examine how gay and bisexual men perceive sexual risk across both a variety of partners and across time. Over ten weeks, participants completed three quantitative personal relationship diaries (PRD) describing sexual encounters during that time period. Participants then completed a timeline-based individual in-depth interview to unpack the PRD data. Participants used multiple factors to determine their own sexual risk (e.g., type of sex, partner concurrency, emotional connections), which often resulted in inconsistencies in defining sexual risk and determining the level of risk both within and across partners and across time. These findings can inform HIV prevention messages and programming.

Keywords

Longitudinal Risk perceptions Sexual risk HIV MSM 

Resumen

Este estudio usa métodos longitudinales y cualitativos para examinar como hombres homosexuales y bisexuales perciben los riesgos sexuales a través tanto de la variedad de parejas como através del tiempo. Por diez semanas, los participantes completaron tres diarios cuantitativos sobre sus relaciones personales describiendo sus encuentros sexuales durante este periodo de tiempo. Después, para explicar los datos del diario, los participantes completaron una entrevista individual profunda basada en una linea de tiempo. Los participantes usaron factores multiples para determinar su proprio riesgo sexual (por ejemplo, el tipo de sexo, la concurrencia de la pareja y conexiones emocionales), que frecuentemente resultaban en inconsistencias para definir el riesgo sexual y determinar el nivel de riesgo tanto dentro y entre parejas y atraves del tiempo. Estos resultados pueden ayudar a crear mensajes y programas para la prevención de VIH.

References

  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV among gay and bisexual men; 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/.
  2. 2.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States—2014: a clinical practical guideline. 2014.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sullivan PS, Carballo-Diéguez A, Coates T, Goodreau SM, McGowan I, Sanders EJ, et al. Successes and challenges of HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. Lancet. 2012;380(9839):388–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimated HIV Incidence in the United States, 2007-2010. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report. 2012. Contract No.: No. 4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huebner DM, Neilands TB, Rebchook GM, Kegeles SM. Sorting through chickens and eggs: a longitudinal examination of the associations between attitudes, norms, and sexual risk behavior. Health Psychol. 2011;30(1):110.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huebner DM, Perry NS. Do behavioral scientists really understand HIV-related sexual risk behavior? A systematic review of longitudinal and experimental studies predicting sexual behavior. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44(7):1915–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoff CC, Campbell CK, Chakravarty D, Darbes LA. Relationship-based predictors of sexual risk for HIV among MSM couples: a systematic review of the literature. AIDS Behav. 2016;20:2873–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Becker MH. The health belief model and personal health behavior. Thorofare: Slack; 1974.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rogers RW, Prentice-Dunn S. Protection motivation theory. 1997.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosenstock IM. The health belief model and preventive health behavior. Health Educ Behav. 1974;2(4):354–86.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weinstein ND. The precaution adoption process. Health Psychol. 1988;7(4):355.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suarez T, Kauth MR. Assessing basic HIV transmission risks and the contextual factors associated with HIV risk behavior in men who have sex with men. J Clin Psychol. 2001;57(5):655–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suarez T, Miller J. Negotiating risks in context: a perspective on unprotected anal intercourse and barebacking among men who have sex with men—where do we go from here? Arch Sex Behav. 2001;30(3):287–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gerrard M, Gibbons FX, Bushman BJ. Relation between perceived vulnerability to HIV and precautionary sexual behavior. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(3):390.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oldenburg CE, Perez-Brumer AG, Reisner SL, Mimiaga MJ. Transactional sex and the HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men (MSM): results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(12):2177–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Perry NS, Taylor SW, Elsesser S, Safren SA, O’Cleirigh C. The predominant relationship between sexual environment characteristics and HIV-serodiscordant condomless anal sex among HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM). AIDS Behav. 2016;20(6):1228–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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):366–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davidovich U, Wit J, Strobbe W. Relationship characteristics and risk of hiv infection: rusbult’s investment model and sexual risk behavior of gay men in steady relationships. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2006;36(1):22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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. Culture Health Sex. 2015;17(5):607–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greene GJ, Andrews R, Kuper L, Mustanski B. Intimacy, monogamy, and condom problems drive unprotected sex among young men in serious relationships with other men: a mixed methods dyadic study. Arch Sex Behav. 2014;43(1):73–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoff CC, Chakravarty D, Beougher SC, Neilands TB, Darbes LA. Relationship characteristics associated with sexual risk behavior among MSM in committed relationships. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2012;26(12):738–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mustanski B, Newcomb ME, Clerkin EM. Relationship characteristics and sexual risk-taking in young men who have sex with men. Health Psychol. 2011;30(5):597.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Newcomb ME, Ryan DT, Garofalo R, Mustanski B. The effects of sexual partnership and relationship characteristics on three sexual risk variables in young men who have sex with men. Arch Sex Behav. 2014;43(1):61–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goldenberg T, Finneran C, Andes KL, Stephenson R. Using participant-empowered visual relationship timelines in a qualitative study of sexual behavior. Global Public Health. 2016;11(5–6):699–718.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stephenson R, Finneran C. The IPV-GBM scale: a new scale to measure intimate partner violence among gay and bisexual men. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e62592.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Finneran C, Stephenson R. Antecedents of intimate partner violence among gay and bisexual men. Violence Vict. 2014;29(3):422–435.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sullivan PS, Peterson J, Rosenberg ES, Kelley CF, Cooper H, Vaughan A et al. Understanding Racial HIV/STI Disparities in Black and White Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Multilevel Approach. PLoS ONE. 2014:9(3):e90514CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Muhib FB, Lin LS, Stueve A, Miller RL, Ford WL, Johnson WD, et al. A venue-based method for sampling hard-to-reach populations. Public Health Rep. 2001;116(1 suppl):216–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. Sage; 2014.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rosenberg ES, Khosropour CM, Sullivan PS. High prevalence of sexual concurrency and concurrent unprotected anal intercourse across racial/ethnic groups among a national, web-based study of men who have sex with men in the United States. Sex Transm Dis. 2012;39(10):741.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosenberg ES, Rothenberg RB, Kleinbaum DG, Stephenson RB, Sullivan PS. The implications of respondent concurrency on sex partner risk in a national, web-based study of men who have with men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63(4):514.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Goedel WC, Halkitis PN, Duncan DT. Behavior-and partner-based HIV risk perception and sexual risk behaviors in men who have sex with men (MSM) who use geosocial-networking smartphone applications in New York City. J Urban Health. 2016;93:400–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mimiaga MJ, Goldhammer H, Belanoff C, Tetu AM, Mayer KH. Men who have sex with men: perceptions about sexual risk, HIV and sexually transmitted disease testing, and provider communication. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34(2):113–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stephenson R, White D, Darbes L, Hoff C, Sullivan P. HIV testing behaviors and perceptions of risk of HIV infection among MSM with main partners. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(3):553–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Eaton LA, Kalichman SC, Cain DN, Cherry C, Stearns HL, Amaral CM, et al. Serosorting sexual partners and risk for HIV among men who have sex with men. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(6):479–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lightfoot M, Song J, Rotheram-Borus MJ, Newman P. The influence of partner type and risk status on the sexual behavior of young men who have sex with men living with HIV/AIDS. JAIDS. 2005;38(1):61–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Suarez TP, Kelly JA, Pinkerton SD, Stevenson YL, Hayat M, Smith MD, et al. Influence of a partner’s HIV serostatus, use of highly active antiretroviral therapy, and viral load on perceptions of sexual risk behavior in a community sample of men who have sex with men. JAIDS. 2001;28(5):471–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eaton JW, Hallett TB, Garnett GP. Concurrent sexual partnerships and primary HIV infection: a critical interaction. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(4):687–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Morris M, Goodreau S, Moody J. Sexual networks, concurrency, and STD/HIV. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;4:109–26.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Doherty IA, Shiboski S, Ellen JM, Adimora AA, Padian NS. Sexual bridging socially and over time: a simulation model exploring the relative effects of mixing and concurrency on viral sexually transmitted infection transmission. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(6):368–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kalichman SC, Williams EA, Cherry C, Belcher L, Nachimson D. Sexual coercion, domestic violence, and negotiating condom use among low-income African American women. J Women’s Health. 1998;7(3):371–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamar Goldenberg
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lynae A. Darbes
    • 2
    • 3
  • Rob Stephenson
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public HealthUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Center for Sexuality & Health DisparitiesUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health Behavior and Biological Sciences, School of NursingUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations