Tiara C Willie1, Danya E Keene2, Trace S Kershaw2, Jamila K Stockman3. 1. Department of Infectious Diseases, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Electronic address: tiara_willie@brown.edu. 2. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. 3. Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vulnerability to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is a significant public health issue for women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV). Despite the increased risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection, women only represent 4.6% of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users in the United States. IPV may present additional difficulties to PrEP access. In this qualitative study, we examined how IPV and the relational context shaped women's decisions, attitudes, and engagement in the PrEP care continuum. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 women residing in Connecticut who participated in a prospective cohort study. We purposively recruited our sample to include women who reported physical and/or sexual IPV in the past 6 months, and used a grounded theory approach to analyze the qualitative data. RESULTS: Our findings suggest multiple ways that the relational context can affect women's decisions, attitudes, and engagement in the PrEP care continuum. We identified five aspects of women's relationships that can shape women's interest, intentions, and access to PrEP: 1) relationship power struggles, 2) infidelity, 3) trust and monogamy, 4) male partner's reactions, and 5) "season of risk" (i.e., PrEP use only during times of perceived human immunodeficiency virus risk). Collectively, these findings suggest that women experiencing IPV might face additional relational challenges that need to be adequately addressed in settings administering PrEP. CONCLUSIONS: Communication on sexual risk reduction strategies should address relational factors and promote women's autonomy. Future research on long-acting and invisible forms of PrEP may help to circumvent some of the relational barriers women experiencing IPV may face when considering PrEP care.
BACKGROUND: Vulnerability to humanimmunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is a significant public health issue for women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV). Despite the increased risk of humanimmunodeficiency virus infection, women only represent 4.6% of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users in the United States. IPV may present additional difficulties to PrEP access. In this qualitative study, we examined how IPV and the relational context shaped women's decisions, attitudes, and engagement in the PrEP care continuum. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 women residing in Connecticut who participated in a prospective cohort study. We purposively recruited our sample to include women who reported physical and/or sexual IPV in the past 6 months, and used a grounded theory approach to analyze the qualitative data. RESULTS: Our findings suggest multiple ways that the relational context can affect women's decisions, attitudes, and engagement in the PrEP care continuum. We identified five aspects of women's relationships that can shape women's interest, intentions, and access to PrEP: 1) relationship power struggles, 2) infidelity, 3) trust and monogamy, 4) male partner's reactions, and 5) "season of risk" (i.e., PrEP use only during times of perceived human immunodeficiency virus risk). Collectively, these findings suggest that women experiencing IPV might face additional relational challenges that need to be adequately addressed in settings administering PrEP. CONCLUSIONS: Communication on sexual risk reduction strategies should address relational factors and promote women's autonomy. Future research on long-acting and invisible forms of PrEP may help to circumvent some of the relational barriers women experiencing IPV may face when considering PrEP care.
Authors: Charlene A Flash; Valerie E Stone; Jennifer A Mitty; Matthew J Mimiaga; Kathryn T Hall; Douglas Krakower; Kenneth H Mayer Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Kristin L Dunkle; Rachel K Jewkes; Heather C Brown; Glenda E Gray; James A McIntryre; Siobán D Harlow Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-05-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jill Blumenthal; Raphael Landovitz; Sonia Jain; Feng He; Ryan Kofron; Eric Ellorin; Gifty M Ntim; Jamila K Stockman; Katya Corado; K Rivet Amico; David J Moore; Sheldon Morris Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 5.944
Authors: Tiara C Willie; Laurel Sharpless; Mauda Monger; Trace S Kershaw; Wendy B Mahoney; Jamila K Stockman Journal: Womens Health (Lond) Date: 2022 Jan-Dec
Authors: Elzette Rousseau; Ariana W K Katz; Shannon O'Rourke; Linda-Gail Bekker; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe; Elizabeth Bukusi; Danielle Travill; Victor Omollo; Jennifer F Morton; Gabrielle O'Malley; Jessica E Haberer; Renee Heffron; Rachel Johnson; Connie Celum; Jared M Baeten; Ariane van der Straten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Amy Killelea; Jeremiah Johnson; Derek T Dangerfield; Chris Beyrer; Matthew McGough; John McIntyre; Rebekah E Gee; Jeromie Ballreich; Rena Conti; Tim Horn; Jim Pickett; Joshua M Sharfstein Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2022 Impact factor: 1.604