Citation

Kacanek D, Bostrom A, Montgomery ET, Ramjee G, de Bruyn G, Blanchard K, Rock A, Mtetwa S, van der Straten A. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. (LWW) 2013; 64(4): 400-408.

Affiliation

*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.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins)

DOI

10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182a6b0be

PMID

24165561

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.

Language: en