Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 78, Issue 3, pp 419–432 | Cite as

The risk environment for HIV transmission: Results from the Atlanta and Flagstaff network studies

  • Richard Rothenberg
  • Julie Baldwin
  • Robert Trotter
  • Stephen Muth
Special Feature: Social Networks

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission may be facilitated or obstructed by network structure, incorporating a measure of risk that combines true risk and surrogates. Persons at presumed high risk for HIV were enrolled in long-term follow-up studies of urban and rural networks in Atlanta, Georgia, and Flagstaff, Arizona. We focused on respondents who were also contacts to evaluate information on both sides of the observed dyads and constructed a Risk Indicator, based on a four-digit binary number, that permitted assessment and visualization of the overall risk environment. We constructed graphs that provided visualization of the level of risk, the types of relationships, and the actual network. Although some of the findings conform to the hypotheses relating network structure to transmission, there were several anomalies. In Atlanta, HIV prevalence was most strongly related to men with a male sexual orientation, despite the widespread use of injectable drugs. In Flagstaff, an area of very low prevalence and no transmission, the risk environment appeared more intense, and the frequency of microstructures was as great or greater than representative areas in Atlanta. The network hypothesis is not yet sufficiently developed to account for empirical observations that demonstrate the presence of intense, interactive networks in the absence of transmission of HIV.

Keywords

HIV Risks Social networks Transmission dynamics 

References

  1. 1.
    Goodman SN. P values, hypothesis tests, and likelihood: implications for epidemiology of a neglected historical debate. Am J Epidemiol. 1993;137:485–496.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greenland S. Randomization, statistics, and causal inference. Epidemiology. 1990;1: 421–429.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feinstein AR. P-values and confidence intervals: two sides of the same unsatisfactory coin. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(4):355–360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feinstein AR. Scientific standards in epidemiologic studies of the menace of daily life. Science. 1988;242:1257–1263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Savitz DZ, Greenland S, Stolley PD, Kelsey JL. Scientific standards of criticism: a reaction to “Scientific standards in epidemiologic studies of the menace of daily life,” by A. R. Feinstein. Epidemiology. 1990;1:78–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taubes G. Epidemiology faces its limits. Science. 1995;269:164–169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garnett GP, Anderson RM. Factors controlling the spread of HIV in heterosexual communities in developing countries: patterns of mixing between different age and sexual activity classes. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B. 1993;342:137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rothenberg RB. Model trains of thought. Sex Transm Dis. 1998;24:201–203.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klovdahl AS. Social networks and the spread of infectious diseases: the AIDS example. Soc Sci Med. 1985;21(11):1203–1216.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedman SR, Neaigus A, Jose B, et al. Sociometric risk networks and risk for HIV infection. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:1289–1296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Potterat JJ, Rothenberg RB, Muth SQ. Network structural dynamics and infectious disease propagation. Int J STD AIDS. 1999;10:182–185.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Potterat JJ, Phillips-Plummer L, Muth SQ, et al. Risk network structure in the early epidemic phase of HIV transmission in Colorado Springs. Sex Transm Infect. In press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Potterat JJ, Muth SQ, Rothenberg RB, et al. Sexual network structure as indicator of epidemic phase. Sex Transm Infect. In press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rothenberg RB, Potterat JJ, Woodhouse DE, Muth SQ, Darrow WW, Klovdahl AS. Social network dynamics and HIV transmission. AIDS. 1998;12:1529–1536.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rothenberg RB, Long D, Sterk C, et al. The Atlanta urban networks study: a blueprint for endemic transmission. AIDS. 2001;14:2191–2200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wylie JL, Jolly A. Patterns of chlamydia and gonorrhea infection in sexual networks in Manitoba, Canada. Sex Transm Dis. 2001;28(1):14–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mastro TD, de Vincenzi I. Probabilities of sexual HIV-1 transmission. AIDS. 1996; 10(suppl A):S75-S82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Royce RA, Sena A, Cates W, Cohen MS. Sexual transmission of HIV. N Engl J Med. 1997;336(15):1072–1078.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vittinghoff E, Bucbinder SP, Judson F, Douglas JMD, MacQueen K. Per contact risk for transmission of HIV associated with four types of homosexual contact. Paper presented at: Fifth Conference on Retrovirus and Opportunistic Infections; February 1–5, 1998; Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borgatti SP, Everett M, Freeman L. Ucinet V for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Natick, MA: Analytic Technologies; 1999.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krackhardt D, Blythe J, McGrath C. Krackplot. Version 3.0. Pittsburgh, Pa: Analytic Technologies; 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garnett GP, Hughes JP, Anderson RM, et al. Sexual mixing patterns of patients attending sexually transmitted diseases clinics. Sex Transm Dis. 1996;23(3):248–257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gupta S, Anderson RM, May RM. Networks of sexual contacts: implications for the pattern of spread of HIV. AIDS. 1989;3:807–817.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kretzschmar M, Morris M. Measures of concurrency in networks and the spread of infectious disease. Math Biosci. 1996;133:165–195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morris M, Kretzschmar M. Concurrent partnerships and the spread of HIV. AIDS. 1997;11:641–648.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kretzschmar M. Sexual network structure and sexually transmitted disease prevention: a modeling perspective. Sex Transm Dis. 2000;27(10):627–635.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Anderson RM, Garnett GP. Mathematical models of the transmission and control of sexually transmitted diseases. Sex Transm Dis. 2001;27(10):636–643.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Service SK, Blower SM. HIV transmission in sexual networks: an empirical analysis. Proc R Soc London B. 1995;260:237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gladwell M. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York: Little Brown and Company; 2000.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Janssen R. Serostatus approach to fighting the HIV epidemic (SAFE): a new prevention strategy to reduce transmission. Paper presented at: Eighth Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infection: February 4, 2001; Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    DesJarlais DC, Friedman SR. HIV epidemiology and interventions among injecting drug users. Int J STD AIDS. 1996;7(suppl 2):57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Patrick DM, Strathdee SA, Archibald CP, et al. Determinants of HIV seroconversion in injection drug users during a period of rising prevalence in Vancouver. Int J STD AIDS. 1997;8(7):437–445.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    DesJarlais DC, Marmor M, Friedmann P, et al. HIV incidence among injection drug users in New York City, 1992–1997: evidence for a declining epidemic. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(3):352–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Laumann EO, Youm Y. Racial/ethnic group differences in the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases in the United States: a network explanation. Sex Transm Dis. 1999; 26:250–261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rothenberg RB, Trotter RT, Sterk C, Baldwin JA, Pach A, Maxwell C. Heterogeneity in drug-using networks. Paper presented at: 12th World AIDS Conference; June 28–July 3, 1998; Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Rothenberg
    • 3
  • Julie Baldwin
    • 1
  • Robert Trotter
    • 1
  • Stephen Muth
    • 2
  1. 1.Northern Arizona UniversityFlagstaff
  2. 2.Quintus-ential SolutionsColorado Springs
  3. 3.Department of Family and Preventive MedicineEmory University School of MedicineAtlanta

Personalised recommendations