Reducing sexual transmission of HIV from those who know they are infected: the need for personal and collective responsibility

Introduction Fifteen years after the identification of HIV, approximately two-thirds of those in the United States who are infected with the virus are aware of their seropositive status [1]. People who are aware of their infection can decrease the risk of developing AIDS by taking antiretroviral therapy. It is less clear, however, whether awareness has decreased the risk of transmitting the virus through unsafe sex. As more people are tested for HIV, a larger proportion of all transmission will be from people who know they are infected. Reducing this transmission is an immensely important public health concern, compounded by the long period in which many seropositive people remain asymptomatic and by new medical advances that enable infected people to live longer, healthier lives [2-5]. However, there are few programs for helping these people reduce sexual risk in the ensuing years. HIV counseling and testing remain the primary means for delivering behavioral intervention to seropositive persons tested at publicly funded testing sites [6,7]. Although counseling and testing are valuable for establishing awareness of serostatus and for providing medical referrals, they are limited in their capacity to help infected people change their sexual risk behaviors and maintain those changes. Post-test counseling is usually delivered in a single brief session shortly after test results are conveyed. This is a time when many people who have tested positive may be unprepared psychologically or limited in their motivation or ability to assimilate prevention messages. For the most part, people who test positive for HIV must draw on their own internal resources (e.g., felt responsibility to protect others) in their attempts to change their behaviors. Seropositive people are asked to behave in ways that minimize the likelihood of transmitting the virus and to be accountable for their actions. Prevention efforts must also provide the social conditions that encourage and reinforce safe behavior. In this review, we examine sexual risk-taking of seropositive persons and discuss the roles of personal and collective responsibility for reducing transmission of HIV. First, we describe findings of studies that have examined sexual risk behaviors of seropositive adults. Second, we consider some of the psychological factors associated with risky sex in this group and whether and how interventions aimed at increasing a sense of personal responsibility to avoid transmitting HIV may enhance prevention efforts. Although some commentators have suggested that the normalization of HIV infection has substantially reduced the social barriers to responsibility-based messages [8], others have more cautiously pointed to the need for more research and reflection [9]. Third, we discuss the role of collective responsibility in HIV prevention efforts. Policymakers, researchers, and citizens alike have an obligation to help combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Social attitudes, norms, and practices, both within risk populations and in the broader society, influence behavior that spreads disease. Insufficient attention to the ecology of HIV prevention limits the effectiveness of individual-level interventions and hinders the development of interventions to address directly the social forces that provide too many incentives for risk and too few rewards for safety. Prevalence of unsafe sex Most adults are sexually active. If anything, people who have contracted HIV have been more sexually active than people who remain uninfected. Many of those with HIV infection do change their sexual practices after testing positive [10]. Nevertheless, studies indicate that more than 70% of seropositive men and women engage in oral, vaginal, or anal sex after they become aware they have HIV [11-15] and that the probability of sexual activity increases with the length of time since they tested seropositive (unpublished data). Some infected people do not reveal their serostatus to their sex partners. Of HIV-positive adults (mostly men), 30% had not informed any past partners, and 29% had not informed any current partners even after an average of 6h of counseling over 2 years [13]. Another study found that 52% of sexually active HIV-positive men kept their infection status secret from one or more sex partners [16]. The prevalence of disclosure is somewhat higher among seropositive women than men [17], stemming in part from the fact that women have fewer sex partners [18,19]. As the number of partners increases, the likelihood of informing any of them decreases [16,20]. Most seropositive men and women disclose their status to primary sex partners [21-26], but disclosure to other partners is less likely [19,26]. The HIV serostatus of the partner also influences disclosure: seropositive men who have sex with men (MSM) who engaged in anal intercourse informed 86% of HIV-positive partners, 46% of HIV-negative partners, and 18% of partners whose serostatus they did not know [19]. Disclosure is associated with an increased likelihood of protected sex with uninfected partners [20]. Table 1 presents findings of studies that have examined the prevalence of unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse amongst HIV-positive adults. Although the varying recall periods for the self-reports make comparisons difficult, a sizable percentage of seropositive men and women engage in unprotected sexual intercourse after they learn they are infected. The studies would overestimate transmission risk if unprotected sex occurred primarily with other infected persons. HIV-positive MSM have been found to be three times more likely to have engaged in unprotected insertive anal intercourse with HIV-positive partners than with other partners [19]. The results of other studies are similar [11,13,14,32,33,37-39]. In these partner-specific analyses, only 35-45% of the partners were seropositive; thus, many of the other partners may have been placed at risk.Table 1: Prevalence of sexual risk behaviors among seropositive persons aware of their serostatus.Individual-level processes Personal responsibility Undoubtedly, most seropositive people feel a unique sense of responsibility to protect sex partners [36]. They know that it is wrong to endanger others by exposing them to HIV without their knowledge. This is most evident when there is emotional involvement with a partner and commitment to an ongoing relationship. Indeed, disclosure of seropositive status and protected sexual activity are most likely to occur when there is commitment to partners at risk for infection, and least likely to occur with casual partners of unknown serostatus [20]. The desire for intimacy and sexual pleasure may, at times, overcome motivation of serodiscordant couples to use condoms during sexual intercourse [40]. Nevertheless, just as committed relationships and reduction in the number of sex partners protect against contracting HIV, they protect against transmitting the virus. Sexual partnerships of two seropositive persons also protect against infecting others. In sexual encounters with casual partners, good intentions may not always be translated into protective behavior. Some infected persons may want to disclose and feel that it is the right thing to do but may reason that their physical appearance, preferred sex activities, or nonverbal cues (e.g., leaving medication or printed materials in plain sight) constitute disclosure. Direct disclosure is often difficult; it may stigmatize a person and precipitate other negative outcomes (e.g., refusal to have any type of sex). Some infected persons who withhold disclosure may attempt to protect partners by using a condom or by restricting the range of sexual activities. Nevertheless, keeping one‚s seropositive status secret keeps the partner from making an informed decision about risk and deters honest communication and negotiated behavior. Psychological factors The responsibility to protect others can become psychologically and behaviorally challenging. Some infected people may question why they are the ones who must shoulder the responsibility for protecting others and may cognitively shift the responsibility to the partner. This cognitive shift may be initiated and reinforced by general prevention messages such as, ‚everyone who is sexually active should use a condom.‚ It may serve to rationalize high-risk acts and alleviate feelings of guilt or anxiety. Some infected persons may reason that partners who are willing to forego condoms have accepted the risk that they may be exposed to the virus and so do not need to be notified or protected. Shifts in responsibility to protect may be influenced by the psychological states of infected persons. Anger, anxiety and tension may promote psychological overload that may trigger motivation to escape the aversive psychological state as well as the burden to protect partners [39,41]. Motivation to escape may induce a person to make external attributions of responsibility for protection (i.e., more responsibility attributed to sex partners than to self) or to use drugs before sex. These escape mechanisms may increase the likelihood of unprotected sexual intercourse [39]. Importantly, negative affect and motivation to escape are not conducive to processing, assimilating, or acting on prevention messages. Receptiveness to those messages may be increased by interventions that help seropositive people maintain positive affective states. When people feel good about themselves and feel respected, they may be more likely to accept responsibility for their actions, more likely to orient themselves to the future, and more likely to consider the consequences of their behaviors [42-44]. The importance of responsible behavior has been a major feature of post-test counseling, and its underlying value of preventing further HIV transmission may be widely accepted by most seropositive people. But messages about personal responsibility to protect others can easily be perceived as victim blaming that only enhances the stigma of the disease and lessens the motivation to protect others. Such messages and the perceptions of social hostility they may engender can also have the broader effect of polarizing the political climate in which prevention messages are offered. We strongly believe that all infected people should receive a dual-theme message that emphasizes protecting their own health as well as that of their partners. This type of message has been featured in some brochures and literature for HIV-positive persons [45-47]. The issue of self-protection has surfaced strongly in the context of combination antiretroviral therapies. It is important that infected people gain access to these therapies and adhere strictly to prescribed treatment regimens. Adherence can lower viral load, help prevent drug resistance, and significantly improve health and prolong life [2-5]. Similarly, seropositive people who adhere to safer-sex guidelines protect themselves. Unsafe sex can lead to secondary infections (e.g., syphilis, gonorrhea, herpesvirus associated with Kaposi‚s sarcoma) that may accelerate disease progression [48-52] and heighten the infectiousness of HIV [53,54]. This type of self-protective message may be quite powerful when communicated to HIV patients by their health-care providers. Individual-level approaches to prevention Messages about self-protection and social responsibility to protect others are needed now more than ever, because the success of medical treatments may have unintended behavioral consequences for HIV prevention. Lowering viral load and keeping it low may reduce the likelihood that a seropositive person may infect a partner during sexual contact [55-57]. However, as treatment options enable people with HIV infection to live longer and feel healthier, those people may become more sexually active. Those who believe that low viral load renders them non-infectious may stop using condoms. Furthermore, as therapeutic successes are publicized, people‚s perceptions of HIV disease may change. What was once viewed as an acute and fatal disease may now be viewed as a chronic, manageable and survivable disease [58]. These perceptions may increase sexual risk behaviors among infected and uninfected people. Recent studies suggest that optimism about the new HIV therapies is associated with sexual risk-taking in MSM [58-60]. Moreover, people at risk for infection may increasingly turn to HIV therapy as a perceived prophylaxis after possible sexual exposures to the virus [61]. Prevention messages for seropositive people and interventions for reducing sexual risk behaviors can be implemented in public clinic settings and managed care facilities. The HIV outpatient clinic is an ideal, yet underused, setting for delivering prevention messages and addressing individual behavior change. The setting provides an opportunity to reach a large number of seropositive people, to integrate behavioral intervention into routine medical care, to provide ongoing counseling and support, and to involve clinic staff (e.g., nurses, physicians, social workers) in prevention activities. Sexually transmitted disease (STD) and tuberculosis clinics afford the same opportunities. Recently published findings are encouraging. HIV-positive patients who reported that clinic staff had discussed the issue of disclosure with them were more likely than other HIV patients to have informed uninfected sex partners of their risk [20]. These intervention opportunities hinge on seropositive people‚s access to care and on the capacity and ability of health-care workers to provide such messages. Clinics provide an environment for developing and reinforcing attitudinal and behavioral norms for safer sex. The use of peer leaders in gay bars has promoted shifts in sexual attitudes and behaviors [62-64]. Safer sex norms can be promoted in clinics through visual cues (posters in waiting rooms and medical examining rooms), printed information, communication from providers, and a more open discussion with patients about disclosure and sexual risk. Complementary approaches can be instituted at community-based organizations (e.g., AIDS service organizations). Finally, client-centered approaches to counseling also show much promise. Brief client-centered counseling has reduced the risk for new infections in people attending STD clinics [65] and may be effective in HIV clinics as well. The counseling involves working with patients to establish achievable steps they can take to reduce their risk behavior. Social workers, nurses, and physicians can easily conduct this type of intervention after proper training. At the very least, health-care providers must be able to recognize the need for, and believe in the value of, behavioral intervention and appropriate referrals. Social aspects of individual choice So far we have focused on some of the ways in which seropositive persons may cope with their infection. This focus posits the HIV-seropositive diagnosis as a profound event in a person‚s life. Learning one‚s seropositive status no doubt has powerful psychological and behavioral consequences. However, no matter how well we understand a person‚s cognitive and affective the effectiveness of individual-level interventions is limited by the social forces on a The factors that encourage sexual risk-taking remain for infected people and may unsafe sex after the seropositive This is a in public interventions aimed at using to influence an behavior have the of and motivation but often the individual to make in behavior that may be to and in or social setting in of gay sexual just this how a powerful of social rewards for risky sex and partners, efforts by some within those to encourage risk The same may be for infected with HIV. about using about and about the responsibility of partners to other are by norms We know even less about this sexual ecology than we do about the ecology of gay men and are within the larger norms of sex and the as a and the social that it to the protective value of relationships is to the fact that social has such relationships among gay sexual behavior has been by social hostility and by the use of and other of social to that hostility men can be in some states for sex in all but states and the of a person in a gay has no protection from The stigma of has been to risky behavior into the gay may reduce risky sex but stigma and social hostility many MSM and from social Social attitudes and have also influenced gay sexual behavior by of and social practices provide incentives to most to relationships that are to be and the status of couples from of and to to all of these are to gay men and behavior is also influenced by social attitudes and with HIV infection to be and are of In these a of and social may and endanger the least of these are that men at a the of partners for women in at risk The among has also been by a of safe and more by a for and over treatment for the drug Furthermore, the of a to promote a of condom use in the of that condom use men and women from HIV infection is yet of the public health effect of addressing of In and social of which should be and in public health collective responsibility for HIV prevention The of collective responsibility emphasizes that all of infected or low risk or a responsibility to change attitudes and behaviors that may promote HIV infection. this for personal responsibility become from that of blaming the victim and are likely to be to prevention efforts. it is important to two general HIV prevention individual that infected persons with their disease and social and or that to the group norms, social practices, and that influence a person‚s attitudes and behaviors These are in that in to in populations and Furthermore, provides to the other They are however, in their primary focus and in the of social they approaches to HIV prevention have become at the social forces that people with HIV infection and helping them reduce risk behaviors in of those forces such as social cognitive and the of behavior can how people to social and have a to HIV prevention. In these however, social and factors (e.g., norms, are as in the cognitive processes of These do not to the and development of social factors themselves. For that we need to to a of social address the social conditions in which make their and intervention at the individual both by the conditions with which must cope and by behavioral with of the social forces interventions to change factors such as public and practices They also address less but powerful factors attitudes, through of social the use of social and other of state to change how people for a protecting gay people from not only the of and in a but also the that on sexual is Of the importance of social factors in health is Prevention research and programs that focus on norms and practices a range of health and of use We similar approaches in HIV the by the for and efforts to change norms of sexual behavior in gay bars and the condom However, interventions and research aimed at and change into HIV prevention to be and to all too The for prevention not in in a general that social conditions influence health and this can be but in ways to directly at the in ways that are both effective and HIV transmission by people who are infected is an important for addressing this The conditions that use of are widely Those to the social over such as drug and to change the social of behavior (i.e., making or condom use more are often perceived as or a of Furthermore, it is to study as it from and into the of social these can easily to before the public health question of whether they will be effective in preventing HIV the resources Although they are to of these is to overcome the factors a more and effective of to prevent HIV infection. It must be that and influence the environment all the the and have the conditions that have the of HIV infection. Moreover, efforts to change the ecology of HIV transmission have been part of the against HIV from in the epidemic. or was to change the environment unsafe sex and HIV and at least some of the it was perceived as collective of In some state have their to to the social of behavior. For they have to encourage people to tested for HIV by establishing and that attempt to protect people who test HIV-positive have to condom use from the or of an STD by has been the of the have also to reduce the political to increasing the of by from to transmission have been that a that unsafe sex is Some of the such as sexual are but even the good ones have been with less than is of has for that the to use and to reduce the social of HIV testing has not been by research on the social that testing and how can be to address those the question is not whether to interventions that directly at and factors HIV, but how to do so In the status of approaches to preventing HIV infection is to the status of behavioral approaches a is a and literature on of disease on social on the social of disease and health and on ways in which social norms, practices and conditions to the individual and have been in public health and in HIV, but not and not within a to to public health Such a amongst other study how interventions aimed at the social of behavior have in other health such as those against or as well as major social such as the to It would on at least two within the research people in that focus on of and and of research to that the know and are about influences It would examine and ways to leaders and in at risk. It would take as a major public capacity to and through and social a long be to as the that any to address and social factors as Table 2 presents a number of individual and that can be to help prevent HIV We that they will do do we to that the social ecology is or even within capacity to the the for public health by interventions is the of acting without health as a the use of and research to health as a of in social change to that and to on that and so and political Table and that reduce sexual transmission of HIV from those who know they are People who have HIV infection both a and an responsibility to help the of HIV through their sexual behavior. interventions are making a to behavior change among people with HIV, and may be with the of messages of personal However, this personal responsibility is from the collective responsibility to the conditions in which both seropositive and people can make this collective responsibility for individual health in part on factors such as access to health It on to and conditions such as of access to safe of drug and barriers to emotional will also in all of both the uninfected and the infected must and other in safer behavior. and a to a of social forces is to interventions that will address HIV at the and in a that is both effective and