WEPE600 - Poster Exhibition
Venues for meeting sex partners and partner HIV risk characteristics: HIV prevention trials network (HPTN064) women's HIV seroIncidence study (ISIS)
M. Roman Isler1, C. Golin2, J. Wang3, J. Hughes4, J. Justman5, D. Haley6, A. Adimora7, W. Chege8, S. Hodder9, HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN064) Women's HIV SeroIncidence Study (ISIS)
1University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Social Medicine, Durham, United States, 2University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Health Behavior, Chapel Hill, United States, 3Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Statistical Center for HIV/AIDS Research & Prevention (SCHARP), Seattle, United States, 4University of Washington, Biostatistics, Seattle, United States, 5Columbia University, Epidemiology, New York, United States, 6FHI360, Durham, United States, 7University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Medicine, Chapel Hill, United States, 8National Institutes of Health, Prevention Sciences Program, DAIDS, NIAID, Bethesda, United States, 9University of Medicine and Dentistry, Medicine, Newark, United States
Background: Though one-quarter of new US HIV cases occur in women, little is known about where women meet sexual partners or how meeting venue may be associated with perceptions of a partner's HIV risk.
Methods: We used baseline data from HPTN064, a community-based longitudinal cohort of women from ten US communities with a high prevalence of poverty and HIV. Eligibility required having >1 individual or sexual partner risk characteristic.Using audio computer-assisted-self-interviews, women reported where they met each of their last three male sexual partners and answered questions “as best as they knew” about each partner's risk characteristics. Venues were categorized into four groups used in venue-based research:
1) Formal (e.g., non-social with regular return patterns (e.g., work);
2) Public (e.g., bar/nightclub),
3) Private (e.g., homes);
4) Virtual (e.g. internet).
Bivariate logistic regression assessed the association between partner characteristics reported by participants and venues. Robust standard errors were used to account for within-subject correlation of repeated outcomes.
Results: 2099 women (86% Black, 38% < HS education and 45% household income ≤$10K/year) participated. Women reported where they met 3,979 partners: 51% from Public, 30% Private, 17% Formal, and 3% Internet venues. Compared to partners from Formal or Private venues, more partners from Public and Virtual venues were reported as having: HIV-positive or unknown serostatus, concurrent partners (CPs), multiple or an unknown number of CPs, and male CPs or CPs of unknown gender (Table 1).
[Venues for Meeting Sex Partners & Partner HIV Risk]
|Report of partner as HIV-positive or unknown status||47%||56%||49%||67%||<.0001|
|Partner´s number of CPs as reported by participants
|Unknown or >1||49%||61%||54%||71%|| |
|Report partner has male CPs or CPs of unknown gender||13%||22%||14%||19%||<.0001|
Conclusion: Women in HPTN 064 reported relatively high proportions of sexual partners with HIV risk characteristics across venue types; partners met at Public and Virtual venues were generally riskier compared with those from Private or Formal venues. A low proportion of these women met partners online. These findings can inform structural interventions and HIV prevention efforts for women.
Download the e-Poster
Back to the Programme-at-a-Glance