Evan A Krueger1, Ian W Holloway2, Marguerita Lightfoot3, Andy Lin4, Phillip L Hammack5, Ilan H Meyer6. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA. 2. Department of Social Welfare, Luskin School of Public Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 4. Institute for Digital Research and Education, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA. 5. Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, USA. 6. The Williams Institute, School of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Abstract
Purpose: We assessed how psychological distress and felt stigma (perceived sexual minority stigma in one's community) are associated with key HIV prevention outcomes in a U.S. national probability sample of sexually active, HIV-negative sexual minority men. Methods: Using data from the Generations study (2017-2018, N = 285), the present study assessed the effects of psychological distress and felt stigma and their interaction on three HIV prevention outcomes: testing for HIV as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines (once or more in the past year), use of latex barriers (e.g., condoms), and familiarity with pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Results: In main effects models, neither psychological distress nor felt stigma was associated with any of the screening and prevention outcomes. However, the interaction between psychological distress and felt stigma was associated with each outcome. Specifically, at higher levels of felt stigma, greater psychological distress was associated with lower odds of HIV testing (exponentiated coefficient = 0.93, confidence interval [95% CI] 0.87-1.00), use of latex barriers (exponentiated coefficient = 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-0.99), and familiarity with PrEP (exponentiated coefficient = 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.98). Conclusion: These findings highlight the importance of felt stigma in shaping the association between psychological distress and engagement in HIV screening and prevention and offer important considerations for future HIV prevention research and interventions.
Purpose: We assessed how psychological distress and felt stigma (perceived sexual minority stigma in one's community) are associated with key HIV prevention outcomes in a U.S. national probability sample of sexually active, HIV-negative sexual minority men. Methods: Using data from the Generations study (2017-2018, N = 285), the present study assessed the effects of psychological distress and felt stigma and their interaction on three HIV prevention outcomes: testing for HIV as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines (once or more in the past year), use of latex barriers (e.g., condoms), and familiarity with pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Results: In main effects models, neither psychological distress nor felt stigma was associated with any of the screening and prevention outcomes. However, the interaction between psychological distress and felt stigma was associated with each outcome. Specifically, at higher levels of felt stigma, greater psychological distress was associated with lower odds of HIV testing (exponentiated coefficient = 0.93, confidence interval [95% CI] 0.87-1.00), use of latex barriers (exponentiated coefficient = 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-0.99), and familiarity with PrEP (exponentiated coefficient = 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-0.98). Conclusion: These findings highlight the importance of felt stigma in shaping the association between psychological distress and engagement in HIV screening and prevention and offer important considerations for future HIV prevention research and interventions.
Entities:
Keywords:
HIV prevention; MSM; felt stigma; psychological distress
Authors: Colleen F Kelley; Erin Kahle; Aaron Siegler; Travis Sanchez; Carlos Del Rio; Patrick S Sullivan; Eli S Rosenberg Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Peter J Smit; Michael Brady; Michael Carter; Ricardo Fernandes; Lance Lamore; Michael Meulbroek; Michel Ohayon; Tom Platteau; Peter Rehberg; Jürgen K Rockstroh; Marc Thompson Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2011-11-25
Authors: John E Pachankis; Mark L Hatzenbuehler; Ford Hickson; Peter Weatherburn; Rigmor C Berg; Ulrich Marcus; Axel J Schmidt Journal: AIDS Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Skyler D Jackson; Krystn R Wagner; Mike Yepes; Tyler D Harvey; Jackson Higginbottom; John E Pachankis Journal: Psychotherapy (Chic) Date: 2022-01-13
Authors: Typhanye V Dyer; Rodman E Turpin; David J Hawthorne; Vardhmaan Jain; Sonica Sayam; Mona Mittal Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Bradley E Iott; Jimena Loveluck; Akilah Benton; Leon Golson; Erin Kahle; Jason Lam; José A Bauermeister; Tiffany C Veinot Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Jessica T Campbell; Olivia R Adams; Margaret Bennett-Brown; Brennan Woodward; Amanda N Gesselman; Gregory Carter Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Yu Liu; Savanah Russ; Jason Mitchell; Sarahmona Przybyla; Chen Zhang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 3.390