Search

A growing body of evidence suggests that network-based interventions to reduce HIV transmission and/or improve HIV-related health outcomes have an important place in public health efforts to move towards 90–90–90 goals. However, the social processes involved in network-based recruitment may pose a risk to participants of increasing HIV-related stigma if network recruitment causes HIV status to be assumed, inferred, or disclosed. On the other hand, the social processes involved in network-based recruitment to HIV testing may also encourage HIV-related social support. Yet despite the relevance of these processes to both network-based interventions and to other more common interventions (e.g., partner services), there is a dearth of literature that directly examines them among participants of such interventions. Furthermore, both HIV-related stigma and social support may influence participants' willingness and ability to recruit their network members to the study. This paper examines (1) the extent to which stigma and support were experienced by participants in the Transmission Reduction Intervention Project (TRIP), a risk network-tracing intervention aimed at locating recently HIV-infected and/or undiagnosed HIV-infected people and linking them to care in Athens, Greece; Odessa, Ukraine; and Chicago, Illinois; and (2) whether stigma and support predicted participant engagement in the intervention. Overall, experiences of stigma were infrequent and experiences of support frequent, with significant variation between study sites. Experiences and perceptions of HIV-related stigma did not change significantly between baseline and six-month follow-up for the full TRIP sample, and significantly decreased during the course of the study at the Chicago site. Experiences of HIV-related support significantly increased among recently-HIV-infected participants at all sites, and among all participants at the Odessa site. Both stigma and support were found to predict participants' recruitment of network members to the study at the Athens site, and to predict participants' interviewer-rated enthusiasm for naming and recruiting their network members at both the Athens and Odessa sites. These findings suggest that network-based interventions like TRIP which aim to reduce HIV transmission likely do not increase stigma-related risks to participants, and may even encourage increased social support among network members. However, the present study is limited by its associational design and by some variation in implementation by study site. Future research should directly assess contextual differences to improve understanding of the implications of site-level variation in stigma and support for the implementation of network-based interventions, given the finding that these constructs predict participants' recruitment of network members and engagement in the intervention, and thereby could limit network-based interventions' abilities to reach those most in need of HIV testing and care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Providing HIV healthcare and Treatment as Prevention both depend on diagnosing HIV cases, preferably soon after initial infection. We hypothesized that tracing risk networks recruits higher proportions of undiagnosed positives than outreach-based testing or respondent-driven sampling (RDS) in Odessa, Ukraine. METHODS: The Transmission Reduction Intervention Project (TRIP) used risk network tracing to recruit sexual and injection networks of recently-infected and longer-term infected (LTs) seeds (2013 to 2016). Integrated Biobehavioural Surveillance (IBBS) (2013) used RDS to recruit people who inject drugs (PWID). Outreach Testing tested PWID for HIV at community outreach sites (2013 to 2016). Proportions of undiagnosed positives among those tested were compared TRIP versus IBBS; TRIP versus Outreach Testing and between TRIP arms. Costs were compared across the projects. RESULTS: TRIP tested 1252 people (21% women) in seeds' risk networks; IBBS tested 400 (18% women); Outreach Testing 13,936 (31% women). TRIP networks included a higher proportion of undiagnosed positives (14.6%) than IBBS (5.0%) or Outreach Testing (2.4%); odds ratio (OR) 3.25 (95% CI 2.07, 5.12) versus IBBS and 7.03 (CI 5.95, 8.31) versus Outreach Testing respectively. Findings remained significant in analyses stratified by sex and when PWID in TRIP networks were compared with Outreach Testing and IBBS. Within TRIP, recently-infected participants' networks contained higher proportions of undiagnosed positives (16.3%) than LTs' networks (12.2%); OR 1.41 (CI 1.01, 1.95). TRIP located undiagnosed positives less expensively than did RDS or Outreach Testing. CONCLUSIONS: TRIP's recruiting techniques, including prioritizing networks of the recently infected, find undiagnosed HIV-positive people efficiently. They should be integrated with standard practice to improve case-finding. Research should test these techniques in other socio-epidemiologic contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This paper examines the extent to which an intervention succeeded in locating people who had recently become infected with HIV in the context of the large‐scale Ukrainian epidemic. Locating and intervening with people who recently became infected with HIV (people with recent infection, or PwRI) can reduce forward HIV transmission and help PwRI remain healthy. Methods: The Transmission Reduction Intervention Project (TRIP) recruited recently‐infected and longer‐term infected seeds in Odessa, Ukraine, in 2013 to 2016, and asked them to help recruit their extended risk network members. The proportions of network members who were PwRI were compared between TRIP arms (i.e. networks of recently‐infected seeds vs. networks of longer‐term infected seeds) and to the proportion of participants who were PwRI in an RDS‐based Integrated Biobehavioral Surveillance of people who inject drugs in 2013. Results: The networks of PwRI seeds and those of longer‐term infected seeds had similar (2%) proportions who were themselves PwRI. This was higher than the 0.25% proportion in IBBS (OR = 7.80; p = 0.016). The odds ratio among the subset of participants who injected drugs was 11.17 (p = 0.003). Cost comparison analyses using simplified ingredients‐based methods found that TRIP spent no more than US $4513 per PwRI located whereas IBBS spent $11,924. Conclusions: Further research is needed to confirm these results and improve TRIP further, but our findings suggest that interventions that trace the networks of people who test HIV‐positive are a cost‐effective way to locate PwRI and reduce HIV transmission and should therefore be implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Viral load is one of the most important determinants for HIV transmission. Identification of people with high viral load (PHVL) can be effective in limiting onward HIV transmission. In order to improve the identification of these individuals within risk networks, we determined a) the number of PHVL recruited through risk networks b) their socio-demographic, behavioural and clinical characteristics and c) the characteristics of individuals who referred these PHVL to the study. Methodology: From November 2013 to March 2016, in Odessa, Ukraine, Transmission Reduction Intervention Project (TRIP) was implemented to identify people recently infected with HIV within the risk networks of "seeds" and "venues" where they engaged in risk behaviour. Results: TRIP identified 53 PHVL, of whom 32 (60%) injected drugs; 42 (79%) were unaware of their HIV status; 25 (47%) had more than one sex partner, and only 14 (26%) were using condoms. There were 164 people who referred individuals into the study; 33 of them (20%) referred PHVL. In terms of referrers, those with lower than secondary level of education, not living with a sex partner, and reporting regular condom use were significantly more likely (p < 0.05) to refer PHVL. Most PHVL (38, 72%) and their referrers (27, 82%) were found through venues. Conclusions: In Odessa city, PHVL are at high risk of transmitting HIV as the majority inject drugs, do not know their HIV status, and have unprotected sex and/or multiple partners. Targeting these individuals for HIV prevention, harm reduction and initiation of antiretroviral treatment (ART) is urgent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]