Behavioral Intention and PartnerType on Condom Use AmongMen in Drug Treatment
Yong S. Song, PhD, University of California, San Francisco
Donald Calsyn, PhD, University of Washington
Suzanne Doyle, PhD, University of Washington
Rhodri Dierst-Davies, MPH, Friends Research Institute
TeChieh Chen, BA, University of Washington
Background
Many substance users enrolled in treatmentcontinue to engage in high-risk sexualbehaviors
HIV risk reduction interventions delivered indrug treatment programs are effective inreducing HIV risk behaviors among drugusers
Background
Positive attitudes and expectancies aboutcondom use are associated with moreconsistent condom use
Perceptions of HIV and STI risk areassociated with actual condom use
Purpose
Secondary outcome analysis from NIDACTN 018, “Safer Sex Skills for Men”
Explored the effects of the following onCondom Use:
Behavioral Intentions to Use Condoms
Sexual Partner Type
Method
Participants: Men enrolled in a NIDA Clinical Trials Network(CTN18) gender specific HIV-prevention intervention
•7 MMT & 7 outpatient psychosocial programs
•Interventions: Randomly assigned to either:
•HIV-Ed: Single-session standard HIV educationintervention
•REMAS: Five-session gender-specific HIV preventionintervention
•Measurement:
•ACASI Assessments at baseline, 3- & 6-mos f/u
Sample Demographics:Randomized (N=590)
HIV-EDREMASm (sd) m (sd)
Age39.4 (10.4) 38.7 (10.6)
Education 12.4 (2.0) 12.0 (1.7)
Income (Mo.)511.4 (1241.3) 530.8 (1114.3)
Maritaln (%) n (%)
Never 137 (45.8) 142 (48.8)
Married 57 (19.1) 55 (18.9)
Div/Wid/Sep 105 (35.1) 94 (32.3)
Sample Demographics:Randomized
HIV-EDREMAS
Ethnicityn (%) n (%)
Black 91 (30.4) 74 (25.4)
White 173 (57.9) 169 (58.1)
Hispanic 29 ( 9.7) 37 (12.7)
Native Am. 2 ( .7) 6 ( 2.1)
Asian 3 (1.0) 2 ( .7)
Other 1 ( .3) 3 ( 1.0)
Predicting Condom Use at Most RecentSexual Event from Intention to Use Condomswith Regular Partners
INTENTIONRATING
RECENTCONDOM USE
N
PHI
Z
OR
(95% CI)
Baseline
RP
3-mos
RP
377
0.30781**
15.01**
3.69
(1.91, 7.14)
Baseline
RP
6-mos
RP
226
0.24868**
11.73**
3.12
(1.62, 5.99)
3-mos
RP
6-mos
RP
231
0.36677**
27.15**
6.40
(3.18, 12.86)
**p<.001
RP=Regular partner
Predicting Condom Use at Most Recent SexualEvent from Intention to Use Condoms withCasual Partners
INCREASE USERATING
RECENTCONDOM USE
N
PHI
Z
OR
(95% CI)
Baseline
CP
3-mos
CP
76
-0.00869
0.01
0.96
(0.37, 2.47)
Baseline
CP
6-mos
CP
75
0.18310
2.48
2.19
(0.83, 5.56)
3-mos
CP
6-mos
CP
59
0.30653*
5.32*
3.68
(1.22, 11.15)
* p<.05
CP = Casual Partner
Data Analytic Plan: Condom useby Regular vs. Casual Partner
Primary Outcome (dependent) Variable: Condom Use with Regular orCasual partner (Binary variable)
Approach: Repeated Measures Logistic Regression Model
Independent variables used in models:
Intervention Condition (HIV-Ed or REMAS)
Time (Baseline, 3-mos, 6-mos)
Treatment x Time
Time-varying covariate used in the model:
Frequency of vaginal and anal intercourse occasions with eitherregular or casual partners at baseline, 3-mos, and 6-mos follow-uppoints
Condom Use with Regular Partner(Female & Male) N=413
Model Results of Repeated Measures Logistic Regression
Variable Parameter Standard z-value p
Estimate Error
Intercept-1.451 0.169 -8.55 <.0001
Covariate0.007 0.002 3.42 0.0006
Treatment-0.0290.225-0.13 0.8949
Time0.117 0.099 1.17 0.2413
Treatment X Time 0.179 0.146 1.22 0.2212
Condom Use with Regular Partner(Male & Female) N=413
Treatment x Time z= 1.22, p=0.22
Condom Use with Casual Partner(Female & Male) N=261
Model Results of Repeated Measures Logistic Regression
Variable Parameter Standard z-value p
Estimate Error
Intercept-0.532 0.198 -2.74 0.0062
Covariate0.012 0.003 3.65 0.0003
Treatment 0.1120.2520.44 0.6575
Time1.842 0.503 3.66 0.0002
Time2 -0.932 0.253 -3.68 0.0002
Treatment X Time -1.773 0.694 -2.56 0.0106
Treatment x Time2 1.003 0.353 2.84 0.0045
Condom Use with Casual Partner(Female & Male) N=261
Treatment x Time z=-2.56, p=0.01
Treatment x Time2z= 2.84, p=0.004
Conclusions
Behavioral intentions to use condoms atbaseline were better predictors of condom usewith regular partners than with casual sexualpartners.
However, behavioral intentions to use condomratings at the follow up data points werestronger predictors of condom use thanbaseline ratings for both causal and regularsexual partners.
Conclusions
Neither intervention appeared to affect actualcondom use with regular partners.
For casual partners, the single-session HIV-Edintervention appeared to have a time limitedeffect on actual condom use.
For the REMAS treatment condition there wasin incremental increase in condom use withCasual Partners at both 3- and 6-months.
Limitations
Reliability of self-report outcome data
No Post-intervention data point forbehavioral intentions to use condoms
Other factors may account for the differencein condom use
Acknowledgements
NIDA U10DA015815 (James Sorensen, PI)
NIDA U10DA13714 (Dennis Donovan, PI)
We thank the CTN018 lead node team, and the 14sites participating in this clinical trial