Abstract: An Integrated Intimate Partner Violence and HIV Risk Reduction Intervention for Women with Abuse Histories: Pilot Results (Society for Prevention Research 23rd Annual Meeting)

482 An Integrated Intimate Partner Violence and HIV Risk Reduction Intervention for Women with Abuse Histories: Pilot Results

Schedule:
Friday, May 29, 2015
Lexington (Hyatt Regency Washington)
* noted as presenting author
Mona Mittal, PhD, Assistant Professor, University of Maryland at College Park, College park, MD
Michael P. Carey, PhD, Director, Centers for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine and Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University, Providence, RI
Background: HIV is a serious public health issue. Few interventions have targeted HIV risk reduction among abused women. This study tested the feasibility and preliminary effects of an 8-week theoretically driven psychosocial intervention to reduce women’s experiences of violence and risk for HIV.

Methods: Participants were recruited from community-based agencies. Eligibility criteria: (1) between 18-49; (2) reporting physical, emotional, or sexual violence in the past 3 months; and (3) reporting risky sexual behavior in the past 3 months. 

204 women were screened, 79 (39%) screened eligible, 55 (70%) were randomized into a two arm trial. Data were collected at baseline, post intervention, and 3-month follow up. Primary outcomes included experiences of violence, condom use, and sexual communication. GEE method was applied to perform the multivariable modeling of outcomes. 

 Findings: SUPPORT participants showed a significant decrease in the total number of episodes of unprotected sex across all sexual partners (RR= .5467; 95% CI = .3142, .9513; P = .03) at post-intervention. Compared to control, SUPPORT participants experienced a stronger decrease in overall frequency of episodes of unprotected sex with steady partner (RR = .4483; 95% CI = .2045, .9826; P = .04) and across all partners (RR = .4149; 95% CI = .1955, .8802; P = .02) from baseline to post-intervention.

 Compared to control, SUPPORT participants reported significantly higher number of conversations about safer sex with their steady partner at the 3-month follow-up (RR = 4.3957; 95% CI = 1.7834, 10.8342; P = .001). SUPPORT participants also significantly increased their communications about safer sex with their other sexual partners (RR = 2.1899; 95% CI = 1.2837, 3.7359; P = .004) between baseline and post-intervention. Their frequency of safer sex communications with these partners was significantly higher than that of control participants at post-intervention follow-up (RR = 6.3127; 95% CI = 1.9843, 20.0829; P = .001).

Both groups experienced significant reductions in experiences of battering at post-intervention (µs = -10.4016 and -7.6167, Ps = .004 and .01, respectively) and at 3-month follow-ups (µs = -15.1247 and -7.1577, Ps = .0008 and .02, respectively) compared to their baseline scores. SUPPORT participants also reported a significant reduction in experiences of IPV between baseline and post-intervention (µ= -25.8703, P = .005).

ConclusionsWe successfully recruited and engaged a group of recently abused women in an integrated HIV-IPV risk reduction intervention. SUPPORT intervention showed promising results in reducing IPV and in increasing condom use and sexual communication across sexual partners. A larger RCT is warranted.