4.4 Article

Effects of a peer-led behavioral intervention to reduce HIV transmission and promote serostatus disclosure among HIV-seropositive gay and bisexual men

Journal

AIDS
Volume 19, Issue -, Pages S99-S109

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.aids.0000167356.94664.59

Keywords

gay and bisexual men; sex behavior; disclosure; HIV seropositivity; prevention; randomized controlled trial; transmission risk

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To evaluate the effects of an enhanced peer-led intervention on transmission risk behavior and serostatus disclosure of HIV-seropositive gay and bisexual men. Design: A randomized intervention trial. Methods: HIV-seropositive gay and bisexual men were recruited from New York City and San Francisco and were randomly assigned to either a standard or an enhanced intervention. The standard intervention consisted of one session that provided safer sex information. The enhanced intervention consisted of six sessions and included safer sex information, interactive learning activities, and discussion groups that were facilitated by HIV-seropositive peers. Participants completed audio computer-assisted self interview (A-CASI) assessments at baseline and 3 and 6-month follow-ups. Optional testing for sexually transmitted infections was offered at baseline and the 6-month follow-up. Results: A total of 811 participants met the inclusion criteria for outcome analyses. Of these, 85 and 90% were retained for the 3 and 6-month follow-ups, respectively. Compared with the standard intervention, fewer men assigned to the enhanced intervention reported unprotected receptive anal intercourse with a negative or unknown-serostatus partner at 3 months (21 versus 26%, P < 0.05). However, there were no other significant differences in transmission risk or serostatus disclosure at 3 or 6 months. Conclusion: The enhanced intervention was associated with only a limited reduction in transmission risk at 3 months relative to the standard intervention. The characteristics of the intervention that may have reduced its efficacy are identified and directions for future research are suggested. (c) 2005 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available