Deborah Kacanek1, Alan Bostrom, Elizabeth T Montgomery, Gita Ramjee, Guy de Bruyn, Kelly Blanchard, Amelia Rock, Sibongile Mtetwa, Ariane van der Straten. 1. *Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA; †Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; ‡RTI International, Women's Global Health Imperative, San Francisco, CA; §HIV Prevention Unit of the South African Medical Research Council, Durban, South Africa; ‖Sanofi Pasteur, Swiftwater, PA; ¶Ibis Reproductive Health, Cambridge, MA; #JSI Research and Training Institute, Washington, DC; **University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe; and ††Department of Medicine, Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We longitudinally examined the effect of intimate partner violence (IPV) on condom and diaphragm nonadherence among women in the Methods for Improving Reproductive Health in Africa study, a phase III HIV prevention trial in southern Africa. METHODS:Recent IPV (fear of violence, emotional abuse, physical violence, or forced sex, in past 3 months), condom nonadherence, and diaphragm nonadherence were assessed at baseline, 12 month, and exit visits (up to 24 months). The association between IPV and (1) condom nonadherence or (2) diaphragm nonadherence across visits was modeled using Generalized Estimating Equations adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS:Of 4505 participants, 55% reported recent IPV during their trial participation. Women reported fearing violence (41%), emotional abuse (38%), being physically assaulted (16%), and forced sex (15%) by their regular male partner. IPV was associated with condom nonadherence in both study arms [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.24 to 1.61 (control arm) and AOR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.28 to 1.69, (intervention arm)] and with diaphragm nonadherence (AOR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.45) adjusting for age, study sites, number of sex partners, and knowledge of male partner infidelity. Modeling effects of each form of IPV separately on nonadherence outcomes yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of recent IPV was high and associated with condom and diaphragm nonadherence during the trial. Counseling in prevention trials should proactively address IPV, for its own sake, and in product and risk-reduction counseling. Strategies to encourage men's positive involvement in product use and prevent IPV perpetration should be considered.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: We longitudinally examined the effect of intimate partner violence (IPV) on condom and diaphragm nonadherence among women in the Methods for Improving Reproductive Health in Africa study, a phase III HIV prevention trial in southern Africa. METHODS: Recent IPV (fear of violence, emotional abuse, physical violence, or forced sex, in past 3 months), condom nonadherence, and diaphragm nonadherence were assessed at baseline, 12 month, and exit visits (up to 24 months). The association between IPV and (1) condom nonadherence or (2) diaphragm nonadherence across visits was modeled using Generalized Estimating Equations adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 4505 participants, 55% reported recent IPV during their trial participation. Women reported fearing violence (41%), emotional abuse (38%), being physically assaulted (16%), and forced sex (15%) by their regular male partner. IPV was associated with condom nonadherence in both study arms [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.24 to 1.61 (control arm) and AOR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.28 to 1.69, (intervention arm)] and with diaphragm nonadherence (AOR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.45) adjusting for age, study sites, number of sex partners, and knowledge of male partner infidelity. Modeling effects of each form of IPV separately on nonadherence outcomes yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of recent IPV was high and associated with condom and diaphragm nonadherence during the trial. Counseling in prevention trials should proactively address IPV, for its own sake, and in product and risk-reduction counseling. Strategies to encourage men's positive involvement in product use and prevent IPV perpetration should be considered.
Authors: Kate S Wilson; Ruth Deya; Linnet Masese; Jane M Simoni; Ann Vander Stoep; Juma Shafi; Walter Jaoko; James P Hughes; R Scott McClelland Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Karl Peltzer; John M Abbamonte; Manasi Soni; Violeta J Rodriguez; Tae K Lee; Stephen M Weiss; Deborah L Jones Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2021-12-18
Authors: Hind A Beydoun; Megan Williams; May A Beydoun; Shaker M Eid; Alan B Zonderman Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Kate S Wilson; Ruth Deya; Krista Yuhas; Jane Simoni; Ann Vander Stoep; Juma Shafi; Walter Jaoko; James P Hughes; Barbra A Richardson; R Scott McClelland Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2016-09
Authors: Sarah T Roberts; Brian P Flaherty; Ruth Deya; Linnet Masese; Jacqueline Ngina; R Scott McClelland; Jane Simoni; Susan M Graham Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2018-10
Authors: Miriam Hartmann; Elizabeth Montgomery; Jonathan Stadler; Nicole Laborde; Busisiwe Magazi; Florence Mathebula; Ariane van der Straten Journal: Cult Health Sex Date: 2015-11-09
Authors: McKenna C Eastment; John Kinuthia; Lei Wang; George Wanje; Katherine Wilson; Anne Kaggiah; Jane M Simoni; Kishorchandra Mandaliya; Danielle N Poole; Barbra A Richardson; Walter Jaoko; Grace John-Stewart; R Scott McClelland Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 3.240