4.4 Article

Sexual networks of pregnant women with and without HIV infection

期刊

AIDS
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 605-612

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00002030-200303070-00016

关键词

HIV-1; sexual network; pregnant women; Peru; heterosexual transmission

资金

  1. FIC NIH HHS [T22 TW00001] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [AI-27757] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To determine the relationship of HIV infection in pregnant women to sexual network size and other risk factors. Design: Case-control study of women attending the public maternity hospital in Lima, Peru. Methods: We interviewed 75 HIV-seropositive women, 41 of their most recent male partners, and two control groups totaling 137 uninfected pregnant women and 70 of their most recent male partners. Each woman's sexual network size was estimated through second and third-generation partnerships over the past year, 5 years and lifetime. Results: Few HIV-seropositive women reported behavioral risk factors for HIV infection, but 79% of male partners were HIV seropositive. Risk factors in male partners included sex with a female sex worker (FSW) or with another man (MSM). The mean 5-year sexual network sizes through the second generation (8.4 persons for HIV-seropositive women, and 2.5 and 1.9 for women in the two control groups) predicted HIV in the women, independently of her own number of partners. These differences were largely attributable to the number of partners reported by male partners. Using data from concurrent studies of FSW and MSM, estimates of 5-year sexual network sizes through the third-generation, excluding contacts with FSW which were protected by consistent condom use, were 672 persons for HIV-seropositive women, and 160 and 224 for women in the two control groups. Conclusions: HIV infection risk among pregnant women in Lima depends largely on their male partners' risk behaviors. Even monogamous women had very large sexual networks. (C) 2003 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据