Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transmission of STIs/HIV at the partnership level: Beyond individual-level analyses

  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mathematical modeling of transmission dynamics of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV has considerably advanced HIV research by highlighting the importance of certain types of partnerships in epidemic spread. Notably, concurrent partnerships, defined as a sexual partnership in which one or more of the partnership members have other sexual partners while continuing sexual activity with the original partner, have been shown to play a fundamental role in potentiating the spread of STIs and HIV. Risk behaviors such as concurrency and sex without condoms as well as STI/HIV prevalence vary with physical, social, and emotional factors within partnerships. The efficiency of STI/HIV transmission appears to vary across types of concurrent partnerships according to the differing dynamics within them. Previous research on partnership dynamics has improved our understanding of the multidimensional aspects of sexual partnering, but little is understood of how these aspects of sexual partnering interact and increase risks for HIV, nor how types of partnerships, partnership dynamics, and concurrency work together to affect both the behavior of condom use and the biological transmission of disease. In this article, we discuss the need to extend our understanding of concurrency to include partnerships among men who have sex with men (MSM) and to differentiate between types of partnerships and to develop interventions to modify risk within partnerships. We also introduce a conceptual framework that reflects how individual and partner characteristics influence partnership dynamics that in turn influence risk behaviors, such as concurrency and not using condoms, and associated risks for STIs and HIV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Koumans EH, Farley TH, Gibson JJ, et al. Characteristics of persons with syphilis in areas of persisting syphilis in the United States: sustained transmission associated with concurrent partnerships. Sex Transm Dis. 2001;28(9):497–503.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Potterat JJ, Zimmerman-Rogers HZ, Muth SQ, et al. Chlamydia transmission: concurrency, reproduction number, and the epidemic trajectory. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;150(12): 1331–1339.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ghani AC, Swinton SJ, Garnett GP. The role of sexual partnership networks in the epidemiology of gonorrhea. Sex Transm Dis. 1997;24(1): 45–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hudson C. AIDS in rural Africa: a paradigm for HIV-1 prevention [editorial]. Int J STD AIDS. 1996;7(4):236–243.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kretzschmar M, Morris M. Measures of concurrency in networks and the spread of infectious disease. Math Biosci. 1996;133(2):165–195.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Morris M, Kretzschmar M. Concurrent partnerships and the spread of HIV. AIDS. 1997;11(5):641–648.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gorbach PM, Stoner BP, Aral SO, H Whittington WL, Holmes KK. It takes a village: understanding concurrent partnerships in Seattle, WA. Sex Transm Dis. 2002;29(8): 463–464.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Laumann EO, Gagnon JH, Michael RT, Michaels S. The Social Organization of Sexuality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Santelli JS, Kouzis AC, Hoover DR, Polacsek M, Burwell LG, Celentano DD. Stage of behavior change for condom use: the influence of partner type, relationship and pregnancy factors. Fam Plann Perspect. 1996;28(3):101–107.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hocking JE, Turk D, Ellinger A. The effects of partner insistence of condom usage on perceptions of the partner, the relationship and the experience. J Adolesc. 1999;22: 355–367.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Civic D. The association between characteristics of dating relationships and condom use among heterosexual young adults. AIDS Educ Prev. 1999;11:343–353.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McLean J, Boulton M, Brookes M, et al. Regular partners and risky behavior: why do gay men have unprotected intercourse? AIDS Care. 1994;6:331–341.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Remien RH, Carballo-Dieguez A, Wagner G. Intimacy and sexual risk behavior in serodiscordant male couples. AIDS Care 1995;7:429–438.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. DiClemente R. Predictors of HIV-preventative sexual behavior in a high-risk, adolescent population: the influence of perceived peer norms and sexual communication on incarcerated adolescents’ consistent use of condoms. J Adolesc Health. 1991;12:385–390.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Catania JA, Coates TJ. Predictors of condom use and multiple partnered sex among sexually active adolescent women: implications for AIDS related health interventions. J Sex Res. 1989;26(4):525–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Freimuth VS, Hammond SL, Edgar T, McDonald DA, Fink EL. Factors explaining intent, discussion and use of condoms in first time sexual encounters. Health Educ Res. 1992;7(2):203–215.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wingood GM, DiClemente R. Application of the theory of gender and power to examine HIV-related exposures, risk factors, and effective interventions for women. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27(5):539–565.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pulerwitz J, Amaro H, De Jong W, Gortmaker SL, Rudd R. Relationship power, condom use and HIV risk among women in the USA. AIDS Care. 2002;14(6):789–800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cook KS, ed. Social Exchange Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pivnick A. HIV infection and the meaning of condoms. Cultural Med Psychol. 1993;17: 431–453.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. North RL, Rothenberg KH. Partner notification and the threat, of domestic violence against women with HIV infection. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(16):1194–1196.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wingood GM, DiClemente R. The effects of an abusive primary partner on the condom use and sexual negotiation practices of African-American women. Am J Public Health. 1997;87(6):1016–1018.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Macaluso M, Demand MJ, Artz LM, Hook EW 3rd Partner type and condom use. AIDS. 2000;14(5):537–546.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Anderson JE, Wilson R, Doll LT, Jones S, Baker P. Condom use and HIV risk behaviors among U.S. adults: data from a national survey. Fam Plann Perspect. 1999;31(1):24–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Seage GR 3rd, Holte S, Gross M, et al. Case-crossover study of partner and situational factors for unprotected sex. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2002;31(4):432–439.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Baker SA, Morrison DM, Carter WB, Verdon MS. Using the theory of reasoned action (TRA) to understand the decision to use condoms in an STD clinic population. Health Educ Q. 1996;23(4):528–542.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lansky A, Thomas JC, Earp JA. Partner-specific sexual behaviors among persons with both main and other partners. Fam Plann Perspect. 1998;30(2):93–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fortenberry JD, Tu W, Harezlak J, Katz BP, Orr DP. Condom use as a function of time in new and established adolescent sexual relationships. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(2): 211–213.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wingood GM. DiClemente R Gender-related correlates and predictors of consistent condom use among young adult African-American women: prospective analysis. Int J STD AIDS. 1998;9:139–145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ellish NJ, Weisman CS, Celentano D, Zenilman JM. Reliability of partner reports of sexual history in a heterosexual population at a sexually transmitted diseases clinic. Sex Transm Dis. 1996;23(6):446–452.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mansergh G, Colfax GN, Marks G, Rader M, Guzman R, Buchbinder S. The circuit party men’s health survey: findings and implications for gay and bisexual men. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:953–958.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Parsons JT, Halkitis PN. Sexual and drug-using practices of HIV-positive men who frequent public and commercial sex environments. AIDS Care. 2002;14(6):815–826.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Galea JT, Whittington WL, Celum CL. An ethnographic study of sexual practices and partnering characteristics of MSM with N. gonorrhea in Seattle. Paper presented at: 13th Meeting of the International Society for Sexually Transmitted Disease Research; 1999; Denver, CO.

  34. Hays RB, Kegeles SM, Coates TJ. Unprotected sex and HIV risk taking among young gay men within boyfriend relationships. AIDS Educ Prev. 1997;9(4):314–329.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bosga MB, de Wit JB, de Vroome EM, Houweling H, Schop W, Sandfort TG. Differences, in perception of risk for HIV infection with steady and non-steady partners among homosexual men. AIDS Educ Prev. 1995;7(2):103–115.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Crepaz N, Marks G, Mansergh G, Murphy S, Miller LC, Appleby PR. Age-related risk for HIV infection in men who have sex with men: examination of behavioral, relationship, and serostatus variables. AIDS Educ Prev. 2000;12(5):405–415.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Davidovich U, de Wit JB, Stroebe W. Assessing sexual risk behavior of young gay men in primary relationships: the incorporation of negotiated safety and negotiated safety compliance. AIDS. 2000;14(6):701–706.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gross M, Buchbinder SP, Celum C, Heagerty P, Seage GR 3rd. Rectal microbicides for U.S. gay men. Are clinical trials needed? Are they feasible? HIVNET Vaccine Preparedness Study Protocol Team. Sex Transm Dis. 1998;25(6):296–302.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kippax S, Crawford J, Davis M, Rodden P, Dowsett G. Sustaining safe sex: a longitudinal study of a sample of homosexual men. AIDS. 1993;7:257–263.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Elford J, Bolding G, Maguire M, Sherr L. Gay men, risk and relationships. AIDS. 2001;15(8):1053–1055.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hoff CC, Coates TJ, Barrett DC, Collette L, Ekstrand M. Differences between gay men in primary relationships and single men: implications for prevention. AIDS Educ Prev. 1996;8(6):546–559.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Moreau-Gruet F, Jeannin A, Dubois-Arber E, Spencer B. Management of the risk of HIV infection in male homosexual couples. AIDS. 2001;15(8):1025–1035.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lagarde E, Auvert B, Carael M, et al. Concurrent sexual partnerships and HIV prevalence in five urban communities of sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS. 2001;15(7):877–884.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rosenberg MD, Gurvey JE, Adler N, Dunlop MB, Ellen JM. Concurrent sex partners and risk for sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents. Sex Transm Dis. 1999; 26(4):208–212.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ford K, Sohn W, Lepkowski J. American adolescents: sexual mixing patterns, bridge partners, and concurrency. Sex Transm Dis. 2002;29(1):13–19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kraut JR. Sexually transmitted diseases and the duration between partnerships (“Gap”). Paper presented at: STIs at the Millenium; May 2000; Baltimore, MD.

  47. Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ, Bonas DM, Martinson FE, Donaldson, KH, Stancil TR. Concurrent sexual partnerships among women in the United States. Epidemiology. 2002;13(3):320–327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Manhart LE, Aral SO, Holmes KK, Foxman B. Sex partner concurrency: measurement, prevalence and correlates among urban 18–39 year olds. Sex Transm Dis. 2002;29(3): 133–143.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Aral SO, Hughes JP, Stoner B, et al. Sexual mixing patterns in the spread of gonococcal and chlamydial infections. Am J Public Health. 1999;89:825–833.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Gorbach PM, Holmes KK. Concurrency and STD in new sexual partnerships. Paper presented at: 2002 National STD Prevention Conference; San Diego, CA; March 4–7, 2002.

  51. Morris M, Podhisita C, Wawer MJ, Handcock MS. Bridge populations in the spread of HIV/AIDS in Thailand. AIDS. 1996;10:1265–1271.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Morris M. Concurrent partnerships and syphilis persistence: new thoughts, on an old puzzle. Sex Transm Dis. 2001;28:504–507.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Washington, Seattle

    King K. Holmes

  2. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Box 951772, 90095-1772, Los Angeles, CA

    Pamina M. Gorbach

Authors
  1. Pamina M. Gorbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. King K. Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pamina M. Gorbach.

Additional information

This research was supported by the University of Washington Cooperative STD Research Center (AI 31448), an NIH training grant (AI 07149), and the NIH career development award, K22 AI01737-01.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gorbach, P.M., Holmes, K.K. Transmission of STIs/HIV at the partnership level: Beyond individual-level analyses. J Urban Health 80 (Suppl 3), iii15–iii25 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jtg079

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jtg079

Keywords

Search

Navigation