Faculty Bibliography

This paper discusses organizations of the oppressed, such as drug user and sex worker groups, and the images of themselves that they construct. We suggest that analysis of these organizationally-produced collective self-images -frequently overlooked in scholarly research -is crucial to understanding the complex internal dynamics of users' and sex workers' organizations and struggles they engage in when defining their collective (organizational) identities and course of action.

Objectives. We examined HIV prevalence and risk factors among injection drug users (IDUs) in Athens, Greece, during an HIV outbreak. Methods. We used respondent-driven sampling (RDS) to recruit 1404 IDUs to the Aristotle intervention in August to October 2012. We interviewed participants and tested for HIV. We performed bivariate and multivariate analyses. Results. Estimated HIV prevalence was 19.8% (RDS-weighted prevalence = 14.8%). Odds of infection were 2.3 times as high in homeless as in housed IDUs and 2.1 times as high among IDUs who injected at least once per day as among less frequent injectors (both, P < .001). Six percent of men and 23.5% of women reported transactional sex in the past 12 months, and condom use was low. Intercourse with non-IDUs was common (53.2% of men, 25.6% of women). Among IDUs who had been injecting for 2 years or less the estimated incidence rate was 23.4 new HIV cases per 100 person-years at risk. Conclusions. Efforts to reduce HIV transmission should address homelessness as well as scaling up prevention services, such as needle and syringe distribution and other risk reduction interventions.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:To (i) describe an intervention implemented in response to the HIV-1 outbreak among people who inject drugs (PWIDs) in Greece (ARISTOTLE programme), (ii) assess its success in identifying and testing this population and (iii) describe socio-demographic characteristics, risk behaviours and access to treatment/prevention, estimate HIV prevalence and identify risk factors, as assessed at the first participation of PWIDs. DESIGN/METHODS:A 'seek, test, treat, retain' intervention employing five rounds of respondent-driven sampling. SETTING/METHODS:Athens, Greece (2012-13). PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:A total of 3320 individuals who had injected drugs in the past 12 months. INTERVENTION/METHODS:ARISTOTLE is an intervention that involves reaching out to high-risk, hard-to-reach PWIDs ('seek'), engaging them in HIV testing and providing information and materials to prevent HIV ('test') and initiating and maintaining anti-retroviral and opioid substitution treatment for those testing positive ('treat' and 'retain'). MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Blood samples were collected for HIV testing and personal interviews were conducted. FINDINGS/RESULTS:ARISTOTLE recruited 3320 PWIDs during the course of 13.5 months. More than half (54%) participated in multiple rounds, resulting in 7113 visits. HIV prevalence was 15.1%. At their first contact with the programme, 12.5% were on opioid substitution treatment programmes and the median number of free syringes they had received in the preceding month was 0. In the multivariable analysis, apart from injection-related variables, homelessness was a risk factor for HIV infection in male PWIDs [odds ratio (OR) yes versus no = 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.41, 2.52] while, in female PWIDS, the number of sexual partners (OR for > 5 versus one partner in the past year = 4.12, 95% CI = 1.93, 8.77) and history of imprisonment (OR yes versus no = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.43, 5.31) were associated with HIV. CONCLUSIONS:In Athens, Greece, the ARISTOTLE intervention for identifying HIV-positive people among people who inject drugs (PWID) facilitated rapid identification of a hidden population experiencing an outbreak and provided HIV testing, counselling and linkage to care. According to ARISTOTLE data, the 2011 HIV outbreak in Athens resulted in 15% HIV infection among PWID. Risk factors for HIV among PWID included homelessness in men and history of imprisonment and number of sexual partners in women.

This article discusses ways in which randomized controlled trials do not accurately measure the impact of HIV behavioral interventions. This is because: 1. Such trials measure the wrong outcomes. Behavior change may have little to do with changes in HIV incidence since behavior change in events between HIV-concordant people have no impact on incidence. Even more important, the comparison of HIV incidence rates between study arms of individual-level RCTs does not measure the true outcome of interest-whether or not the intervention reduces HIV transmission at the community level. This is because this comparison cannot measure the extent to which the intervention stops transmission by HIV-infected people in the study to those outside it. (And this is made even worse if HIV-infected are excluded from the evaluation of the intervention.) 2. There are potential harms implicit in most cognitively oriented behavioral interventions that are not measured in current practice and may not be measurable using RCTs. Intervention trials often reinforce norms and values of individual self-protection. They rarely if ever measure whether doing this reduces community trust, solidarity, cohesion, organization, or activism in ways that might facilitate HIV transmission. 3. Many interventions are not best conceived of as interventions with individuals but rather with networks, cultures of risks, or communities. As such, randomizing individuals leads to effective interventions that diffuse protection through a community; but these are evaluated as ineffective because the changes diffuse to the control arm, which leads to systematic and erroneous reductions in the evaluated effectiveness as RCTs measure it. The paper ends by discussing research designs that are superior to individual-level RCTs at measuring whether an intervention reduces or increases new HIV transmission.

African Americans face disproportionate sexually transmitted infection including HIV (STI/HIV), with those passing through a correctional facility at heightened risk. There is a need to identify modifiable STI/HIV risk factors among incarcerated African Americans. Project DISRUPT is a cohort study of incarcerated African American men recruited from September 2011 through January 2014 from prisons in North Carolina who were in committed partnerships with women at prison entry (N = 207). During the baseline (in-prison) study visit, participants responded to a risk behavior survey and provided a urine specimen, which was tested for STIs. Substantial proportions reported multiple partnerships (42 %), concurrent partnerships (33 %), and buying sex (11 %) in the 6 months before incarceration, and 9 % tested positive for an STI at baseline (chlamydia: 5.3 %, gonorrhea: 0.5 %, trichomoniasis: 4.9 %). Poverty and depression appeared to be strongly associated with sexual risk behaviors. Substance use was linked to prevalent STI, with binge drinking the strongest independent risk factor (adjusted odds ratio: 3.79, 95 % CI 1.19-12.04). There is a continued need for improved prison-based STI testing, treatment, and prevention education as well as mental health and substance use diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing will soon enter care for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), and for addiction. There is a paucity of data on how to disseminate genetic testing into healthcare for marginalized populations. We explored drug users' perceptions of genetic testing. METHODS: Six focus groups were conducted with 34 drug users recruited from syringe exchange programmes and an HIV clinic between May and June 2012. Individual interviews were conducted with participants reporting previous genetic testing. RESULTS: All participants expressed acceptance of genetic testing to improve care, but most had concerns regarding confidentiality and implications for law enforcement. Most expressed more comfort with genetic testing based on individual considerations rather than testing based on race/ethnicity. Participants expressed comfort with genetic testing in medical care rather than drug treatment settings and when specifically asked permission, with peer support, and given a clear rationale. CONCLUSION: Although participants understood the potential value of genetic testing, concerns regarding breaches in confidentiality and discrimination may reduce testing willingness. Safeguards against these risks, peer support, and testing in medical settings based on individual factors and with clear rationales provided may be critical in efforts to promote acceptance of genetic testing among drug users.