Hiv, HIV Infections, Risk Reduction, Sexual Behavior, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Sexually Transmitted Infection
Conditions
Keywords
Prevention, Relationship functioning, Adherence, Prevention strategies
Brief summary
This couples-based, digital health intervention project is serostatus neutral and seeks to determine efficacy for: a) use and adherence to evidence-based HIV/STI prevention-care strategies; b) creation and adherence to a tailored prevention-care plan; c) creation and adherence to a tailored sexual agreement; and d) improvements in other relationship dynamics among male couples who are in a relationship (defined as greater than 3 months or more).
Detailed description
The project draws on our strong findings from the preliminary work we conducted in the US (R34 pilot randomized control trial & mixed method acceptability project). The 5-year project will revise and update an existing digital health couples-based HIV/STI prevention toolkit intervention that showed promise for reducing couples' HIV risk. The intervention is theoretically grounded in Couples Interdependence Theory for health behavior change. The project is a 16-month randomized control trial with 375 at-risk male couples using a delayed, educational control condition of 8 months. Our Specific Aims are to: 1) examine efficacy of the intervention on couples' a) formation and adherence to a risk-reduction plan and agreement, b) relationship functioning, c) self-reported and biomarker-confirmed indicators of risk (sexual behavior and STI), and engagement in HIV prevention (PrEP adherence) and care (ART adherence); 2) evaluate use of the intervention over time by using three different data sources; 3) explore moderating and mediating effects on couples' outcomes a-c. The project has high Public Health significance given the HIV disparities and the importance of attending to couples' unique relationship and prevention needs.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALIntervention LuvHub
From day 1 to day 487 (i.e., entire 16-month duration, post baseline) of the trial, participants randomized to the intervention arm will have access to use the five modules as directed. The LuvHub intervention includes modules focused on topics of: HIV/STI prevention, sexual agreements, communication/decision-making skills, strengthening relationships and creating goals, and physical activity.
BEHAVIORALWaitlist Control LuvHub
From day 243 to day 487 (i.e., starting after 8-month assessment) of the trial, participants randomized to the waitlist control condition will have access to use the five modules as directed. The LuvHub intervention includes modules focused on topics of: HIV/STI prevention, sexual agreements, communication/decision-making skills, strengthening relationships and creating goals, and physical activity.
Sponsors
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Florida International University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Masking description
Participants and relationship partner will not know in advance which arm they are assigned and randomized to in the trial.
Intervention model description
16-month randomized control trial with delayed, educational control condition of 8 months.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. assigned male at birth and currently identify as male (cis-gender) or gender queer; 2. has had condomless anal sex (CAS) within the prior 3 months; 3. both partners endorse being in a relationship with one another, defined as someone you feel emotionally or romantically committed to above all others, and may be referred to as partner, husband, boyfriend etc.; 4. be in a relationship with current partner for at least 3 months; 5. be at least 18 years of age; 6. not have any history of intimate partner violence since relationship began; 7. self-report not feeling coerced by partner to take part in the study activities, 8. has own Internet/web-connected device (e.g. smartphone, laptop, tablet, computer); 9. lives in the U.S. and plans to live in the U.S. for the next 16 months; 10. willing to complete the activities required to obtain and mail back their biomedical data (i.e., self-administer a rapid HIV test (if applicable), willing to use swabs to self-collect their own specimens for STI testing, willing to provide dried blood spot for ART adherence (if applicable), willing to provide dried blood spot for PrEP adherence (if applicable).
Exclusion criteria
* Does not meet one or more of the inclusion criteria
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in HIV incidence by comparing results from test kits received at baseline to 16-months. | Baseline to 16-months | Participants will be asked to provide sample to test for HIV at baseline and 16-months, using at-home self-collection test kits. Count: New HIV and STI diagnosis via biomedical testing at follow-up occurring 16 months after baseline randomization. |
| Change in STI incidence by comparing results from test kits received at baseline to 16-months. | Baseline to 16-months | Participants will be asked to provide samples to test for STIs at baseline and 16-months, using at-home self-collection test kits. Count: New HIV and STI diagnosis via biomedical testing at follow-up occurring 16 months after baseline randomization. |
| Changes in relationship communication patterns by comparing responses from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. | Baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, baseline to 16-months | Participants will be asked 11 questions with Likert-type scale responses (range 1-9) at all time points: 3 items for mutual constructive communication (MCC): higher scores represent greater MCC. 8 items for avoidance and withdrawal patterns (AW): higher scores represent greater AW. Changes in mean scores of MCC and AW (individual, couple), respectively, will be evaluated from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. Heavey CL, Brandon ML, Zumtobel DC, et al. The Communication Patterns Questionnaire: The reliability and validity of a constructive communication subscale. J Marriage Fam. 1996;58(3):796-800. No PMID. Futris TG, Campbell K, Nielsen RB, Burwell SR. The Communication Patterns Questionnaire-Short Form: A Review and Assessment. Fam J. 2010;18(3):275-87. No PMID. |
| Changes in relationship commitment by comparing responses from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. | Baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, baseline to 16-months | Participants will be asked about their relationship commitment at all time points, using a validated theoretical measure containing 13 questions with Likert-type scale responses (range 1-5). Higher scores represent greater commitment to the relationship. Changes in mean scores (individual, couple) from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. Rusbult CE, Martz JM, Agnew CA. The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Pers Relatsh. 1998;5(4):357-391. No PMID. Rodrigues D, Lopes D. The Investment Model Scale (IMS): further studies on construct validation and development of a shorter version (IMS-S). J Gen Psychol. 2013;140(1):16-28. PMID: 24837343. |
| Changes in relationship trust by comparing responses from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. | Baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, baseline to 16-months | Participants will be asked about their relationship trust at all time points, using a validated theoretical measure containing 8 questions with Likert-type scale responses (range: 0-6). Higher scores represent greater trust toward the partner in the relationship. Changes in mean scores (individual, couple) from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. Larzelere RE, Huston TL. The Dyadic Trust Scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. J Marriage Fam. 1980;42(3):595-604. No PMID. |
| Changes in relationship communal coping by comparing responses from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. | Baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, baseline to 16-months | Participants will be asked 42 items (range 1-5): outcome efficacy to reduce HIV threat subscale of joint effort (7 items), communication (7 items), and planning and decision-making (7 items); couple efficacy reduce HIV threat subscale of joint effort (7 items), communication (7 items), and planning and decision-making (7 items). Higher scores represent greater attitudes to achieve outcomes or couple's confidence that together they can engage in communal coping efforts. Changes in mean scores (individual, couple) from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. Salazar LF, Stephenson RB, Sullivan PS, et al. Development and validation of HIV-related dyadic measures for men who have sex with men. J Sex Res. 2013;50(2):164-177. PMID: 22206480. |
| Changes in relationship transformation of motivation by comparing responses from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. | Baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, baseline to 16-months | Participants will be asked about their relationship transformation of motivation (ToM) at all time points, using 2 questions (range 1-5). ToM measures (1) cognitive and (2) emotional response to the health threat. Higher scores represent greater cognitive response and emotional response, respectively. Changes in mean scores (individual, couple) from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. Salazar LF, Stephenson RB, Sullivan PS, et al. Development and validation of HIV-related dyadic measures for men who have sex with men. J Sex Res. 2013;50(2):164-177. PMID: 22206480. |
| Changes in the creation of a detailed risk reduction plan by comparing responses from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. | Baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, baseline to 16-months | Participants will be asked if they created a detailed risk-reduction plan that contains evidence-based strategies with their partner at all time points, using a dichotomous measure containing yes/no responses. Changes in responses (individual, couple) from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. |
| Changes in the creation of a detailed agreement by comparing responses from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. | Baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, baseline to 16-months | Participants will be asked if they created a detailed agreement with their partner at all time points, using a dichotomous measure containing yes/no responses. Changes in responses (individual, couple) from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. |
| Changes in adherence to risk-reduction plan by comparing responses from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. | Baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, baseline to 16-months | Participants will be asked whether they had adhered to their risk reduction plan at all time points. Changes to categorical responses (yes/no) at individual and couple levels from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. |
| Changes in adherence to agreement by comparing responses from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. | Baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, baseline to 16-months | Participants will be asked whether they had adhered to their agreement at all time points. Changes to categorical responses (yes/no) at individual and couple levels from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. |
| Changes in the number of evidence-based prevention strategies being used over time by comparing responses from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. | Baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, baseline to 16-months | Participants will be asked to select which evidence-based HIV/STI prevention strategies they are currently using at all time points. Changes to categorical responses (yes/no) at individual and couple levels from baseline to 8-months, 8-months to 16-months, and baseline to 16-months. |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed