Library

What Is Post-Exposure Prevention (PEP)?

Why PEP now?

There is still no cure for AIDS. Prevention remains the most effective way to halt the epidemic. The best way to avoid HIV infection is to avoid exposure in the first place through sexual abstinence, having only uninfected sex partners, consistent condom use, injection drug use abstinence, and consistent use of sterile injection equipment.¹ However, recently we have learned a lot about treating HIV and understanding the progression of HIV disease. Protease inhibitors used in combination with other HIV drugs have been extremely effective in reducing the levels of HIV in the blood and restoring health to many patients.² For HIV-uninfected persons who are exposed to HIV, there may be a window of opportunity in the first few hours or days after exposure in which these highly active drugs may prevent HIV infection. A study of health care workers showed that treatment with AZT after needlestick exposure to HIV-infected blood reduced the odds of HIV infection by 81%.^3,4 The study was not designed to test the efficacy of AZT for post-exposure treatment and has some limitations. Following consultations, the findings from this study and other data led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to recommend post-exposure prevention (more commonly known as post-exposure treatment, post-exposure prophylaxis or PEP) for some health care workers who are accidentally exposed to HIV-infected body fluids. Since PEP is recommended for health care workers, it is only logical that PEP be considered for people exposed to HIV through sex or injection drug use, especially since these are more common sources of HIV infection.

What are components of PEP?

There are no federal recommendations governing PEP for sexual or injection drug use exposure although the CDC is currently studying the matter. Many physicians and clinics across the country currently offer PEP in widely varying forms.⁵ Most forms of PEP involve providing one or several anti-HIV drugs within 72 hours of possible exposure. These drugs are then taken for a 4-6-week period. Before PEP is implemented, a thorough risk assessment should be conducted to determine a patient’s level and frequency of risk-taking, as well as the HIV status of the patient’s partner. Patients should be informed of the potential side effects and difficulty taking the drugs and should be assisted to develop strategies to successfully take the drugs as prescribed. Partner notification and counseling can be part of a PEP program. One of the potential advantages of PEP is the opportunity to reach and counsel people at high risk for HIV. PEP programs should include a behavioral counseling component to help patients develop skills for avoiding future exposure to HIV and to deal with the fear of becoming infected. Referrals to HIV prevention, substance abuse, medical, mental health and housing programs should also be included to help patients address important risk factors.⁶ Unprotected sexual intercourse can result not only in HIV infection, but in other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and unintended pregnancy. PEP programs should offer testing and treatment for other STDs and testing for pregnancy. STD infection has been shown to increase the risk of HIV transmission 2- to 5-fold, and treating STDs is an effective HIV prevention intervention.⁷

Does PEP work?

No one knows for sure. The idea of providing potent anti-HIV drugs to prevent infection makes sense biologically, but some people believe the study of health care workers and AZT is not definitive, and there have been no studies on PEP for sexual or injection exposure. The potency of the new anti-HIV drugs, however, is a compelling, if unproven, reason to offer PEP treatment after exposure to a life threatening disease.⁸

What are disadvantages of PEP?

One of the biggest fears about PEP is that people will return to unsafe sexual and drug using practices if they believe that PEP will prevent them from becoming infected. There is some evidence that treatment advances, including PEP, may be leading to increasing incidence of unsafe sex in the US.⁹ For example, rates of gonorrhea among men who have sex with men have recently increased for the first time since the early 1980s.¹⁰ Another fear is that misuse of PEP drug therapies may cause a person to develop a resistant strain of HIV. If PEP drug therapy is unsuccessful and a person does develop a drug-resistant virus, the new anti-HIV drugs may not be as effective for treating that person. This can occur not only with PEP, but with any combination therapy treatment. PEP regimens can be both complicated and prohibitively expensive to follow. PEP drugs need to be taken at specific times of the day on a regular schedule. About one-third of the health care workers who received PEP never finished the regimen because of difficulty taking the drugs. Side effects of the drugs can be severe and debilitating, and long-term effects are still unknown. A typical dosage for four weeks can cost $600-1,000 including the medicine, blood tests and clinic visits. Prescribing PEP can be a complicated decision for clinicians, and should be done on an individual basis. Many believe that a person with single case of unprotected sexual- or needle-related exposure to an HIV+ partner would be a good candidate for PEP. However, many people worry that providing PEP repeatedly to a person with ongoing high-risk behavior may cause disinhibition for unsafe sex and could also be toxic.

What programs exist?

San Francisco, CA has recently implemented a project to determine the safety and feasibility of PEP. The study offers intensive behavioral counseling, HIV testing and anti-HIV medication to persons who have been exposed within the last 72 hours. The project will not look at the effectiveness of PEP; rather it will look at whether participants comply with treatments, if there are significant side effects, and if clients change their risk behavior following the exposure.¹¹ Internationally, many countries are moving ahead with PEP. In France, the Secretary of State for Health announced in August that PEP would be made available to all accidental exposures to HIV, whether occupational, sexual or injection. In London, England, PEP is available through clinics and private physicians. In British Columbia, Canada, PEP is available in emergency rooms for patients with possible exposure.

How can PEP help?

PEP can help strengthen HIV prevention strategies by serving as a bridge between prevention and treatment, similar to STD prevention. Traditional STD prevention includes education, testing, early treatment, counseling, partner notification and follow-up. In San Francisco, one PEP program is located in an STD clinic. Many people have advocated the integration of HIV and STD strategies. PEP is a step in that direction. No one expects PEP to be 100% effective. No prevention tool is 100% effective for any medical condition, whether it be HIV, unwanted pregnancy or cancer. The best prevention effort requires a “myriad of imperfect, cumulatively effective”¹² interventions. A comprehensive HIV prevention strategy uses many elements to protect as many people at risk for HIV as possible. PEP offers the opportunity to expand the range of prevention activities, thereby expanding the possibility of saving lives.

Says who?

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Backgrounder: CDC-sponsored external consultants meeting on post-exposure therapy (PET) for non-occupational exposures to HIV. Fact sheet prepared by the CDC. July 1997. 2. Deeks SG, Smith M, Holodniy M, et al. HIV-1 protease inhibitors: a review for clinicians . Journal of the American Medical Association. 1997;277:145-153. 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health-care workers after percutaneous exposures to HIV-infected blood-France, United Kingdom, and United States, January 1988-August 1994 . Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1995;44:929-933. 4. Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA, et al. A case-control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after percutaneous exposure . New England Journal of Medicine. 1997;337:1485-1490. 5. Zuger A. `Morning after’ treatment for AIDS. The New York Times. June 10, 1997. 6. Katz MH, Gerberding JL. Postexposure treatment of people exposed to the human immunodeficiency virus through sexual contact or injection-drug use . New England Journal of Medicine. 1997;336:1097-1100. 7. Wasserheit JN. Epidemiological synergy. Interrelationships between human immunodeficiency virus infection and other sexually transmitted diseases . Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 1992;19:61-77. 8. Henderson DK. Postexposure treatment of HIV-taking some risks for safety’s sake . New England Journals of Medicine. 1997;337:1542. 9. Dilley JW, Woods WJ, McFarland W. Are advances in treatment changing views about high-risk sex? (letter) . New England Journal of Medicine. 1997;337:501-502. 10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gonorrhea among men who have sex with men-selected sexually transmitted diseases clinics, 1993-1996 . Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1997;46:889-892. 11. Perlman D. Morning-after HIV experiment starts in SF. San Francisco Chronicle. October 14, 1997. 12. Cates W. Contraception, unintended pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases: why isn’t a simple solution possible? American Journal of Epidemiology. 1996;143:311-318.

Prepared by Pamela DeCarlo*, Thomas J. Coates, PhD* *CAPS, UCSF December 1997. Fact Sheet #32E

Reproduction of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California San Franciso should be cited as the source of this information. For additional copies of this and other HIV Prevention Fact Sheets, please call the National AIDS Clearinghouse at 800/458-5231. Comments and questions about this Fact Sheet may be e-mailed to [email protected]. © December 1997, University of California

¿Qué necesitan los HSH para la prevención del VIH?

revisado 4/01

¿qué necesitan los HSH?

Los Hombres que tienen Sexo con otros Hombres (HSH ó MSM por sus siglas en inglés) no constituyen un grupo homogéneo sino que representan una amplia gama de personas con estilos de vida y necesidades de salud distintas. El término HSH se refiere a cualquier hombre que tenga sexo con otro hombre independientemente de cómo se autodefina: gay, bisexual o heterosexual, entre otras identidades. A pesar del éxito en los cambios de conductas sexuales, los HSH continúan siendo afectados en forma desproporcionada por el VIH/SIDA. Ellos representan el mayor porcentaje de casos con SIDA en los EEUU (53%) aún cuando los porcentajes entre usarios de drogas inyectadas (UDI) (25%) y entre heterosexuales (10%) han aumentado. En 1997, la tasa de prevalencia del VIH en HSH en cuatro comunidades urbanas fue de 17%, 29% para los HSH afroamericanos y 40% para los HSH-UDIs. El VIH no es una cuestión que existe por sí sola sino que está ligada a los diferentes aspectos de la vida de los hombres. El riesgo relacionado con el VIH está muy arraigado a otros aspectos esenciales como son el romance y la intimidad, el deseo sexual y el amor, el uso del alcohol y drogas recreativas, la homofobia, la coerción y el abuso, el racismo y la autoestima. Los programas de prevención de VIH deben tomar en cuenta estos elementos.

la salud sexual

En los EEUU los jóvenes no reciben suficiente educación sexual y la educación sobre la sexualidad entre personas del mismo sexo es casi nula. En nuestra sociedad en general, los hombres se ven presionados a demostrar su hombría por medio de la actividad sexual y la agresividad. En este contexto, muchos HSH enfrentan retos adicionales al aprender a buscar pareja, al intimar y establecer una relación, al entender como funcionan el deseo, el sexo y la excitación sexual. La incomodidad con la propia sexualidad e identidad puede llevar a tomar riesgos sexuales. “De Hombre a Hombre: Seminarios de Salud Sexual”, es un programa en Minnesota basado en un modelo de salud sexual que asume que si los HSH se sienten más cómodos y más competentes e informados sobre la sexualidad, tendrán mayores posibilidades de reducir el riesgo. El programa utiliza una educación sexual muy amplia y especificidad cultural. El programa tuvo éxito en la reducción de la homonegatividad interiorizada y las relaciones sexuales anales sin protección. El VIH no es lo único que afecta la salud sexual de los HSH. Otras enfermedades de transmisión sexual (ETS) como el herpes y las verrugas genitales pueden afectar la salud y la sexualidad. En varios estados de este país se ha visto un incremento entre los HSH en los casos de la gonorrea resistente a los medicamentos, lo cual la hace más difícil de tratar.

homofobia, racismo y autoestima

La homofobia y el racismo externos e internalizados pueden provocar baja autoestima la cual puede conducir al aumento de las conductas de riesgo, la agresión sexual, la dificultad para negociar el sexo seguro y el abuso de alcohol y drogas. Los HSH de razas de color están siendo afectados en forma desproporcionada por muchos males sociales y de salud como el VIH. Los HSH afroamericanos y los latinos son más propensos que los HSH blancos a participar en actividades de alto riesgo y a contagiarse con el VIH. En un estudio con hombres gay latinos urbanos se descubrió que quienes reportaron conductas de alto riesgo también presentaron altos índices de dificultades económicas, racismo, homofobia, violencia doméstica y un historial de abuso y coacción sexual a temprana edad. Hermanos de Luna y Sol, es un programa de prevención de VIH para latinos inmigrantes gay/bisexuales, que confronta experiencias comunes de opresión sufridas por latinos gay como la homofobia, el machismo, el abuso sexual, el racismo y la separación de la familia y de la cultura. ”Ayudándonos a Nosotros Mismos” (UHU por sus siglas en inglés) es un programa multifacético de prevención para HSH negros en el que se analizan las tensiones provocadas por formar parte de una minoría étnica racial y sexualmente oprimida. UHU ofrece servicios para la salud mental y utiliza estrategias de mercadeo social para combatir la homofobia.

uso de alcohol y drogas recreativas

La frecuencia en el consumo de drogas es mayor entre los HSH que entre los heterosexuales, aunque recientemente se ha notado un descenso en el consumo de uso de alcohol y drogas, exceptuando las anfetaminas. El patrón de uso de drogas puede variar enormemente por región y subcultura. En varias partes de los EEUU los bares gay—donde con frecuencia hay un ambiente cargado sexualmente en el que las drogas y el alcohol están presentes—son los únicos lugares para socializar y conocer a otros HSH. Algunos factores sobre el consumo de drogas que exponen a los HSH al VIH son 1) compartir equipo de inyección infectado; 2) el uso de drogas está asociado con conductas sexuales de alto riesgo; 3) la prevalencia de VIH es mayor entre HSH-UDI y en HSH que consumen drogas aunque no se inyecten, lo que aumenta las posibilidades de transmisión del VIH. El uso de drogas puede ser el detonador o la excusa para no protegerse al tener relaciones sexuales. Algunos HSH tienen problemas para tener sexo sin la influencia de drogas, mientras otros prefieren el sexo bajo la influencia de drogas creyendo que así aumenta su libido. Para algunos HSH consumir drogas en los clubes gay y en las llamadas “circuit parties” les produce una sensación de comunidad y pertenencia. Una encuesta a HSH que asisten a estas fiestas reveló que es más factible que el sexo anal sin condón entre serodiscordantes (un VIH+ con un VIH-) ocurra entre quienes consumen anfetaminas (speed), Viagra y alminitratos (poppers). Para muchos HSH-UDI lo que forma su identidad personal es el uso de drogas más que la propia orientación sexual. Muchos HSH-UDI se consideran heterosexuales. Muchas veces los programas de prevención para HSH pasan por alto a los HSH-UDI, o bien, los programas para UDI no tratan el tema de la orientación sexual. Los HSH-UDI tienen altos índices de infección de VIH, alta frecuencia para el sexo sin protección, altos índices de pobreza y una adicción que conlleva padecimientos físicos y sociales. El Proyecto Stonewall en San Francisco es un programa de “reducción de daño” para HSH que usan speed. Este proyecto ofrece educación y asistencia y ha llegado a HSH de diversas identidades sociales y sexuales. Varias ciudades de los EEUU han abierto centros sociales para hombres gay en los que no se sirve alcohol y ni permiten las drogas. Un programa de prevención para hombres jóvenes gay ayuda a crear centros comunitarios para que éstos puedan socializar sin necesidad de usar alcohol.

¿qué significa el riesgo sexual?

Las percepciones del riesgo sexual respecto al VIH varía entre los HSH y puede cambiar de una situación sexual a otra. A lo largo de la epidemia del VIH, los HSH han tenido que tomar decisiones complicadas sobre lo que ellos consideran que es riesgoso. Algunos hombres deciden por sí mismos que es correcto no usar un condón si son quienes penetran, o si tienen sexo oral, o si la carga viral de la pareja es indetectable. Los HSH podrían estar tomando estas decisiones porque hasta hoy las evidencias científicas de la trasmisión son ambiguas o porque no les incomoda su nivel de riesgo. La mayoría de los HSH han podido manejar el riesgo sexual con estrategias eficaces como la monogamia entre parejas concordantes, el uso constante del condón y de repetidas pruebas de detección, el uso de condones al tener sexo con otras parejas o la abstinencia. Una pequeña minoría de HSH participa en actividades sabiendo el riesgo que corre, como el de tener relaciones sexuales anales sin protección y cuando desconocen el seroestatus de la pareja. Las relaciones sexuales anales sin protección entre hombres VIH+ y VIH- siguen constituyendo el mayor riesgo de transmisión entre los HSH. La sensación de intimidad que produce el contacto de piel con piel hace que algunas personas no usen condón durante la penetración. Muchos HSH sienten que su identidad sexual y las metas de liberación sexual obtenidas en arduas batallas dependen de poder tener sexo—incluyendo las relaciones anales—sin restricciones de ninguna clase. Una gran mayoría de HSH se enfrenta al riesgo con frecuencia, sin embargo existe muy poco conocimiento o investigaciones sobre aquellos hombres que se mantienen sanos y seguros, y sobre cómo sus valores, su forma de cuidarse, su ética, su esperanza de sobrevivencia colectiva y sus relaciones con los demás les han apoyado. Las labores de prevención del VIH necesitan conceptos más amplios y emocionalmente resonantes que desarrollen los aspectos afirmativos de la vida de los HSH.

¿quién lo dice?

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report. 2000;12. 2. Catania JA, Osmond D, Stall RD, et al. The continuing HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health. in press. 3. Seal DW, Kelly JA, Bloom FR, et al. HIV prevention with young men who have sex with men: what young men themselves say is needed. AIDS Care. 2000;12:5-26. 4. Robinson BE, Bockting W, Rosser BRS, et al. The sexual health model: a sexological approach to long-term HIV risk reduction. Presented at the XIII International Conference on AIDS, Durban, South Africa, July 2000. Abst #ThPeD5613. 5. Rosser BRS, Bockting WO, Rugg DL, et al. A sexual health approach to long-term HIV risk reduction among men who have sex with men: results from a randomized controlled intervention trial. Presented at the XIII International Conference on AIDS, Durban, South Africa, July 2000. Abst #WePeD4718. 6. Altman LK. Gonorrhea shows its resistant side; disease control agency tells doctors of new recommendations. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. October 2, 2000. p. 5G. 7. Diaz RD, Ayala G, Bein E. Social oppression, resiliency and sexual risk: findings from the national Latino gay men’s study. Presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference, Atlanta, GA, Aug 29-Sep 1, 1999. Abst#287. 8. Díaz RM. Latino Gay Men and HIV: Culture, Sexuality, & Risk Behavior. NY:Routledge. 1998. 9. Simmons R. Towards developing a comprehensive program for effective HIV prevention among racially oppressed gay men, bisexuals and MSM. Presented at the XIII International Conference on AIDS, Durban,South Africa, July 2000. Abst #TuPeD3839. 10. Stall R, Wiley J. A comparison of alcohol and drug use patterns of homosexual and heterosexual men: the San Francisco men’s health study. Drug Alcohol Dependency. 1988;22:63-73. 11. Crosby M, Stall R, Paul J, et al. Alcohol and drug use patterns have declined between generations of younger gay/bisexual men in San Francisco. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 1998;52:177-182. 12. Rhodes F, Deren S, Wood MM, et al. Understanding HIV risks of chronic drug-using men who have sex with men. AIDS Care. 1999;11:629-648. 13. Colfax G, Mansergh G, Vittinghoff E, et al. Drug use and high-risk sexual behavior among circuit party participants. Presented at the XIII International Conference on AIDS, Durban, South Africa, July 2000. Abst #TuPeC3422. 14. Stonewall Project. 415/502-1999. 15. Kegeles SM, Hays RB, Pollack LM, et al. Mobilizing young gay and bisexual men for HIV prevention: a two-community study. AIDS. 1999;13:1753-1762. 16. Williams AM. Condoms, risk and responsibility. Presented at the HIV Prevention Summit, Half Moon Bay, CA, June 2000. 17. Nimmons D. In this together: the limits of prevention based on self-interest and the role of altruism in HIV safety. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality. 1998;10:75-871. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report . 2000;12. 2. Catania JA, Osmond D, Stall RD, et al. The continuing HIV epidemic among men who have sex with men . American Journal of Public Health. 2001 Jun;91(6):907-14. 3. Seal DW, Kelly JA, Bloom FR, et al. HIV prevention with young men who have sex with men : what young men themselves say is needed. AIDS Care. 2000;12:5-26. 4. Robinson BE, Bockting W, Rosser BRS, et al. The sexual health model: a sexological approach to long-term HIV risk reduction. Presented at the XIII International Conference on AIDS, Durban, South Africa, July 2000. Abst #ThPeD5613. 5. Rosser BRS, Bockting WO, Rugg DL, et al. A sexual health approach to long-term HIV risk reduction among men who have sex with men: results from a randomized controlled intervention trial. Presented at the XIII International Conference on AIDS, Durban, South Africa, July 2000. Abst #WePeD4718. 6. Altman LK. Gonorrhea shows its resistant side; disease control agency tells doctors of new recommendations . Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. October 2, 2000. p. 5G. 7. Diaz RD, Ayala G, Bein E. Social oppression, resiliency and sexual risk: findings from the national Latino gay men’s study. Presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference, Atlanta, GA, Aug 29-Sep 1, 1999. Abst#287. 8. Díaz RM. Latino Gay Men and HIV: Culture, Sexuality, & Risk Behavior . NY:Routledge. 1998. 9. Simmons R. Towards developing a comprehensive program for effective HIV prevention among racially oppressed gay men, bisexuals and MSM. Presented at the XIII International Conference on AIDS, Durban,South Africa, July 2000. Abst #TuPeD3839. 10. Stall R, Wiley J. A comparison of alcohol and drug use patterns of homosexual and heterosexual men: the San Francisco men’s health study . Drug Alcohol Dependency. 1988;22:63-73. 11. Crosby M, Stall R, Paul J, et al. Alcohol and drug use patterns have declined between generations of younger gay/bisexual men in San Francisco . Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 1998;52:177-182. 12. Rhodes F, Deren S, Wood MM, et al. Understanding HIV risks of chronic drug-using men who have sex with men . AIDS Care. 1999;11:629-648. 13. Colfax G, Mansergh G, Vittinghoff E, et al. Drug use and high-risk sexual behavior among circuit party participants. Presented at the XIII International Conference on AIDS, Durban, South Africa, July 2000. Abst #TuPeC3422. 14. Stonewall Project . 415/502-1999. 15. Kegeles SM, Hays RB, Pollack LM, et al. Mobilizing young gay and bisexual men for HIV prevention: a two-community study . AIDS. 1999;13:1753-1762. 16. Williams AM. Condoms, risk and responsibility. Presented at the HIV Prevention Summit, Half Moon Bay, CA, June 2000. 17. Nimmons D. In this together: the limits of prevention based on self-interest and the role of altruism in HIV safety . Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality. 1998;10:75-87.

Preparado por Michael Crosby, PhD y Pamela DeCarlo; Traducido por Romy Benard-Rodríguez, Revisión Maricarmen Arjona, CAPS Abril 2001. Fact Sheet #7SR

¿Qué necesitan los desamparados para evitar el VIH?

revisado 9/05

¿quiénes son los desamparados?

El desamparo es un problema creciente en EE.UU. donde cada día más de 800,000 personas están sin hogar. Entre 2.3 y 3.5 millones de individuos se encuentran desamparados en algún momento del año.² Según el informe sobre el desamparo preparado en el 2004 por los alcaldes estadounidenses, el 70% de las ciudades encuestadas habían registrado un aumento en el número de solicitudes de albergue de emergencia durante el año previo.² La población de desamparados en EE.UU. se divide normalmente en tres grupos: adultos solteros, familias y jóvenes. Se calcula que los adultos solteros componen el 54% de esta población, las familias el 40% y los jóvenes no acompañados un 5%.

¿existe una prevalencia alta de VIH en las poblaciones desamparadas?

Los desamparados tienen peor salud y mayor mortalidad que la población en general.³ La prevalencia del VIH/SIDA varía mucho entre los subgrupos de personas sin hogar, pero por lo general excede a la de quienes cuentan con vivienda. La elevada prevalencia de infección, el acceso limitado a tratamiento y las pobres condiciones de vida han contribuido a que el VIH/SIDA ya sea una principal causa de muerte en esta población.⁴ Un estudio en San Francisco, CA reportó una prevalencia total del VIH del 10.5% entre adultos actualmente desamparados o con vivienda marginal, una tasa cinco veces mayor que la de la población general de San Francisco. El mismo estudio encontró una prevalencia del VIH del 30% entre los hombres desamparados que tienen sexo con otros hombres (HSH) y del 8% entre los desamparados usuarios de drogas inyectables (UDI).⁵ La relación entre el desamparo y el VIH parece ser un camino de doble sentido. Las personas VIH+ corren mayor riesgo de convertirse en desamparados debido a la discriminación y al alto costo de la vivienda y de la atención médica. Al mismo tiempo, los desamparados corren más riesgo de contraer el VIH.

¿cuáles son los riesgos para una persona desamparada?

Los desamparados viven en situaciones transitorias, por lo general en comunidades pobres con una alta prevalencia del VIH. Por lo tanto, si participan en conductas riesgosas la probabilidad de resultar infectado es mayor. Los desamparados también están más afectados por problemas relacionados con las drogas, el alcohol y la salud mental que el resto de la población. Según un cálculo realizado en el año 2000, el 88% de los hombres solteros desamparados y el 69% de las solteras desamparadas tenía uno de estos tres trastornos.⁶ Casi un cuarto de toda la población adulta de solteros desamparados padece de enfermedad mental grave y persistente.¹ La impulsividad y la imprudencia que muchas veces se asocian con la enfermedad mental grave o con el abuso de drogas y alcohol contribuyen a conductas riesgosas tales como el contacto sexual sin protección y con múltiples parejas, el uso compartido de jeringas o el intercambio de sexo por drogas. Las condiciones del desamparo y de la pobreza extrema también favorecen las conductas riesgosas. Por ejemplo, la mayoría de los albergues tienen áreas comunales para dormir y bañarse son exclusivamente para hombres o para mujeres y ofrecen poca privacidad. Estas restricciones impiden las relaciones sexuales estables. Otras características comunes entre los desamparados y que están asociadas con las conductas de riesgo del VIH incluyen: experiencias adversas en la niñez tales como abuso físico y sexual,^1,7 acoso sexual, violencia por parte de la pareja y otros historiales traumáticos, así como la falta de apoyo social.⁸

¿cuáles son los obstáculos?

Una concepción falsa es que el mayor obstáculo en la prestación de servicios de prevención es el de localizar a los desamparados. En realidad, muchos de ellos son visibles por trabajar o vivir en la calle o son fáciles de encontrar en los albergues. Al formar relaciones de confianza, visitarlos continuamente durante un tiempo y aprovechar las redes sociales existentes, es posible encontrar y retener a los desamparados para atenderlos y darles seguimiento. En un programa de pruebas del VIH para desamparados con enfermedad mental grave, el 90% de los que se hicieron la prueba regresaron por los resultados.:9 Las barreras y entornos institucionales pueden restringir las actividades de prevención del VIH. Muchos albergues sólo disponen del personal suficiente para brindar servicios básicos. Algunos son reacios a permitir que programas externos de prevención del VIH los visiten para hablar explícitamente sobre el sexo y las drogas o para distribuir condones a sus clientes, ya que estas actividades se prohíben en la mayoría de los albergues. La falta de lugares privados para ofrecer pruebas y consejería sobre asuntos delicados también puede ser un obstáculo.

¿qué se está haciendo al respecto?

La cantidad y calidad de los servicios para desamparados varía mucho a través de los EE.UU. Históricamente, estos programas han atendido a hombres solteros y pocos han formado redes de atención coordinada que faciliten la provisión de servicios integrales y continuos.¹ A continuación presentamos unos ejemplos de intervenciones eficaces diseñadas específicamente para atender a los desamparados con VIH o en riesgo de contraerlo. Sex, Games and Videotapes es un programa para hombres desamparados con enfermedad mental en un albergue de la ciudad de Nueva York, NY. Este programa se basa en las actividades centrales de la vida en albergue: juegos competitivos, cuentos relatados y videos. Para muchos de estos hombres el sexo ocurre en lugares públicos, en forma apresurada y gira alrededor del consumo de drogas. Este programa permite comentar temas sexuales sin temor a reproches. Uno de los componentes es un concurso para ver quién coloca más rápido un condón (sin desgarrarlo) sobre un plátano, lo cual enseña habilidades importantes en el uso del condón. El programa triplicó la reducción de conductas sexuales de riesgo.¹⁰ Boston HAPPENS provee educación en salud, manejo de casos, atención médica básica, pruebas del VIH, consejería y servicios de salud mental para jóvenes VIH+ vulnerables, muchos de ellos desamparados. Los colaboradores de Boston HAPPENS ofrecen servicios sin cita previa y clínicas que dan a la calle en áreas donde los jóvenes se reúnen. Por medio del trabajo persistente de alcance comunitario y del manejo individualizado de casos, HAPPENS retiene a los jóvenes desamparados vulnerables.¹¹ Se ha comprobado que la provisión de vivienda e incentivos económicos reduce las conductas riesgosas tales como el sexo desprotegido, el consumo de drogas y el uso compartido de jeringas.^12,13 Housing Works se especializa en la atención integral para desamparados VIH+ en la ciudad de Nueva York. Sus servicios abarcan las áreas de vivienda, atención médica, capacitación y colocación laboral, así como la promoción y defensa de derechos.¹⁴

¿qué queda por hacer?

Sigue siendo necesario brindar actividades de prevención eficaces en entornos de servicio culturalmente adecuados adonde acudan los desamparados, por ejemplo: comedores gratuitos, albergues, hoteles residenciales y clínicas. El personal de estas organizaciones debe recibir capacitación sobre métodos de prevención del VIH que tomen en cuenta los factores de riesgo concretos vinculados al desamparo, tener expectativas realistas de cambios y permitir que los desamparados se fijen metas concretas y factibles. Es necesario formar redes coordinadas para que el personal remita a las personas rápida y fácilmente a los servicios que necesitan.¹⁵ Las intervenciones grupales que han funcionado en ciertos ámbitos deben diseminarse ampliamente y ser adaptadas para su uso en otros entornos. Los intentos para evitar la transmisión del VIH entre los desamparados fracasarán si no se hace un esfuerzo concertado para responder mejor a sus necesidades de supervivencia, entre ellas las de vivienda a largo plazo, empleo, ingresos, nutrición adecuada, tratamiento contra las drogas y el alcohol, así como servicios médicos y de salud mental regulares. Lamentablemente, a pesar del anuncio de nuevas iniciativas para socorrer a los desamparados, las tendencias recientes de apoyos gubernamentales son desalentadoras y el creciente déficit presupuestario federal no augura los aumentos necesarios en el futuro próximo. Como una de las poblaciones más vulnerables de nuestra sociedad, los desamparados necesitan apoyo, respeto, protección y esfuerzos de prevención constantes. Preparado por Naomi Adler BA*, Dan Herman Phd**, Ezra Susser MD DrPh*** *CAPS, **NY State Psychiatric Inst., *** Columbia U Mailman School of Public Health Septiembre 2005. Hoja #16SR **********

¿quién lo dice?

1. Burt M, Laudan Y, Lee E, et al. Helping America’s homeless: emergency shelter or affordable housing? Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. 2001. 2. U.S. Conference of Mayors. A status report on hunger and homelessness inAmerica’s cities: .https://endhomelessness.atavist.com/mayorsreport2016 )3. Burt, MR, Laudan, AY, Douglas T, et. al. 1999 Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve – Summary Report. Washington, DC: DHUD/DHHS.https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/66286/310291-Home… ) 4. Cheung AM, Hwang SW. Risk of death among homeless women: a cohort study and review of the literature. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2004;170:1243. 5. Robertson MJ, Clark RA, Charlebois ED, et al. HIV seroprevalence among homeless and marginally housed adults in San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. 2004;94:1207-1217. 6. North CS, Eyrich KM, Pollio DE, et al. Are rates of psychiatric disorders in the homeless population changing? American Journal of Public Health. 2004;94:103-108. 7. Herman DB, Susser ES, Struening EL, et al. Adverse childhood experiences: are they risk factors for adult homelessness? American Journal of Public Health. 1997;87:249-255. 8. Zlotnick C, Tam T, Robertson MJ. Adverse childhood events, substance abuse, and measures of affiliation. Addiction and Behavior. 2004;29:1177-1181. 9. Desai MM, Rosenheck RA. HIV testing and receipt of test results among homeless persons with severe mental illness. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2004;161:2287-2294. 10. Susser E, Valencia E, Berkman A, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus sexual risk reduction in homeless men with mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1998;55:266-272. 11. Harris SK, Samples CL, Keenan PM, et al. Outreach, mental health, and case management services: can they help to retain HIV-positive and at-risk youth and young adults in care? Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2003;7:205-218. 12. Aidala A, Cross JE, Stall R, Harre D, et. al. Housing status and HIV risk behaviors: implications for prevention and policy. AIDS and Behavior. 2005;9:1-15. 13. Riley ED, Moss AR, Clark RA, et. al. Cash benefits are associated with lower risk behavior among the homeless and marginally housed in San Francisco. Journal of Urban Health. 2005;82:142-150. 14. Housing Works www.housingworks.org (Accessed 4/20/06) 15. Woods ER, Samples CL, Melchiono MW, et. al. Initiation of services in the Boston HAPPENS Program: human immunodeficiency virus-positive, homeless, and at-risk youth can access services. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2002;16:497-510. 3p\(18px; “>18. Lombardi E. Enhancing transgender health care. American Journal of Public Health. 2001;91:869-872.

Preparado por Joanne Keatley, MSW* y Kristen Clements-Nolle, MPH** *CAPS, **SF Departamento de Salud Pública Tradución Mateo Rutherford y Roy Rojas Febrero 2002. Hoja Informativa 41S

How Do HIV, STD and Unintended Pregnancy Prevention Work Together?

Why is it important?

HIV is a sexually transmitted disease (STD). HIV, other STDs (such as gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, chlamydia and trichomoniasis), and unintended pregnancy are all adverse consequences of sexual behavior. If someone is at risk for unintended pregnancy or common STDs, that means they are engaging in an activity that could also put them at risk for HIV. In addition, these STDs may increase the likelihood of HIV acquisition. STDs are the most frequently reported diseases in the US. Every year in the US, about 12 million new cases of STDs occur, 3 million of them among teenagers.¹ In 1996, for the first time in the US, the number of AIDS deaths decreased. However, new cases continue to occur, and the largest proportionate increase in AIDS incidence in 1996 occurred among men and women who acquired AIDS through heterosexual contact (28% increase for men, 23% for women).² Over half of the 6.4 million pregnancies in the US in 1988 were unintended (56%). As many of those pregnancies ended in abortion (44%) as in birth (43%).³ In 1996, over half a million young women under age 20 gave birth, and two-thirds of those were unintended.⁴ Unintended pregnancy has great personal and social consequences.

Do STDs affect HIV?

Absolutely. First, an HIV- person who has an STD is 2- to 5-times more susceptible to HIV acquisition because the lesions and immune response associated with STDs make it easier for HIV to enter the body. Second, an HIV+ person who has an STD can be more infectious and more easily transmit HIV to an uninfected partner. Third, an HIV+ person may be more likely to acquire other STDs. This “epidemiological synergy” may be responsible for the explosive growth of HIV in some populations.⁵ Many research studies have shown the connection between HIV and STDs. A study in Malawi found that HIV+ men with gonorrhea had concentrations of HIV in their semen eight times higher than HIV+ men who did not have another STD. After treatment for the STD, HIV concentration in semen decreased to levels not significantly different from pre-STD levels. This suggests that STDs increase the infectiousness of HIV, and that detecting and treating STDs in HIV+ persons may help prevent HIV transmission.⁶ Clients at urban STD clinics in Miami, FL who had at least two HIV tests were found to have high rates of HIV and syphilis. Among clients tested twice, 10% acquired syphilis and 4% HIV in the interval. African-Americans accounted for 77% of HIV seroconversions and the rate was highest in women, especially 15-19 year olds. The majority of HIV infections were acquired heterosexually. A total of 18% of all seroconversions were associated with syphilis acquired between two HIV tests.⁷

Are STD and HIV prevention connected?

Yes and no. While the epidemics of STD and HIV have grown in parallel, prevention efforts to combat the adverse consequences of sexual behavior have not always worked in tandem. In the US HIV epidemic, heterosexual transmission is an increasing cause of infection, and people of color and younger people are increasingly infected. This is also true of STDs in the Southeast and selected large cities across the US, where syphilis, gonorrhea and HIV epidemics clearly overlap, especially among young African-American women.⁸ HIV prevention efforts may be more effective among certain populations if condom use and HIV are addressed together with STD or pregnancy prevention. Young people are much more likely to know someone who has had an STD or an unintended pregnancy than they are to know someone with HIV. HIV prevention programs, as well as family planning and STD clinics, might create a more effective and realistic message by putting all three together-HIV, STDs and unintended pregnancy-and saying condoms can protect against all three.^9,10

What’s working?

In rural Tanzania, a community-level program focused on improving diagnosis and treatment of STDs as means to prevent HIV infection. The program included training existing health center staff in STD management, ensuring availability of effective antibiotics for STDs, and providing periodic outreach to educate on STDs and increase health care use. Individuals in the intervention communities had lower HIV incidence (by about 40%) compared to persons in non-intervention communities.¹¹ Project RESPECT was a randomized HIV counseling and testing program conducted at STD clinics in five cities in the US with high HIV seroprevalence. The program evaluated whether interactive counseling is more effective than informational messages in reducing risk behaviors and preventing HIV and other STD transmission. The program found relatively little difference between 4-session and 2-session interactive counseling interventions, but found lower rates of new STDs, including HIV, among those groups compared to groups that only received information. Reported condom use increased across all groups. Project RESPECT demonstrated that brief risk-reduction counseling strategies can be effectively conducted in busy public clinic settings, and that counseling interventions can change STD rates in high-risk populations.¹² An HIV prevention program was implemented at an STD clinic in the South Bronx, NY, due to the clinic’s access to large numbers of high-risk men and women. The program was designed to have minimal disruption on clinical services while providing culturally-appropriate counseling. Patients had access to either a video on condom use in English or Spanish, or both the video and an interactive group session. Patients were given coupons for free condoms at a pharmacy several blocks from the clinic. Clients who saw the video were more likely to redeem coupons than those who did not, and clients who saw the video and participated in group sessions were even more likely to redeem coupons.¹³ People of Color Against AIDS Network (POCAAN) in Seattle, WA found that because of the stigma of HIV, prevention educators were not always successful at reaching at-risk populations, especially young African-American and Latino males ages 13-35. In 1990 POCAAN decided to educate about STDs and sexual health since these messages were more acceptable to the target population. The program uses street outreach and presentations in various settings such as juvenile facilities, middle and high schools, ESL classes and drug treatment centers. They offer referral vouchers that ensures clients will be seen at an STD clinic and that it will be free. In addition, POCAAN continually updates and educates its staff about STDs and works hard to integrate STD prevention messages into all its HIV-related activities.¹⁴

What still needs to be done?

It is time to further integrate STD, HIV and unintended pregnancy efforts, both on a programmatic and a research level. Wherever and whenever feasible, HIV prevention behavior change programs, STD clinics, family planning clinics and primary care facilities need to incorporate all three-HIV, STDs and unintended pregnancy-in their education, testing, counseling and treatment services.¹⁰ Research on HIV, both clinical and behavioral, needs to include the effects of STD and pregnancy. Although funding for HIV, STDs and family planning have traditionally been separate, government agencies and foundations need to provide funds for improved coordination or integration. Workers in STD, HIV and family planning should be cross-trained. Community Planning Groups should consider STD and unintended pregnancy prevention plans as well in areas where the epidemiology warrants. A comprehensive HIV prevention strategy uses many elements to protect as many people at risk for HIV as possible. As funding for social services grow more scarce, it is important to not pit STDs and unintended pregnancy against HIV in the fight for money, but to adopt new approaches to fight these overlapping epidemics.

Says who?

1. Eng TR, Butler WT, eds. The Hidden Epidemic: Confronting Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Washington, DC : National Academy Press; 1997. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: trends in AIDS incidence-United States, 1996 . Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1997;46:861-867. 3. Forrest JD . Epidemiology of unintended pregnancy and contraceptive use . American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1994;170:1485-1489. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State-specific birth rates for teenagers-United States, 1990-1996 . Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 1997;46:837-842. 5. Wasserheit JN. Epidemiological synergy. Interrelationships between human immunodeficiency virus infection and other sexually transmitted diseases . Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 1992;19:61-77. 6. Cohen MS, Hoffman IF, Royce RA, et al. Reduction of concentration of HIV-1 in semen after treatment of urethritis: implications for prevention of sexual transmission of HIV-1 . The Lancet. 1997;349:1868-1873. 7. Otten MW, Zaidi AA, Peterman TA, et al. High rate of seroconversion among patients attending urban sexually transmitted disease clinics . AIDS. 1994;8:549-553. 8. St. Louis ME, Wasserheit JN, Gayle HD. Editorial: Janus considers the HIV pandemic-harnessing recent advances to enhance AIDS prevention . American Journal of Public Health. 1997;87:10-12. 9. Cates W. Sexually transmitted diseases and family planning. Strange or natural bedfellows, revisited . Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 1993;20:174-178. 10. Stein Z. Family planning, sexually transmitted diseases, and the prevention of AIDS-divided we fail? American Journal of Public Health. 1996;86:783-784. 11. Grosskurth H, Mosha F, Todd J, et al . Impact of improved treatment of sexually transmitted diseases on HIV infection in rural Tanzania: randomized controlled trial . The Lancet. 1995;346:530-536. 12. Kamb ML, Bolan G, Zenilman J, et al. Does HIV/STD prevention counseling work? Results from a multi-center randomized trial. Presented at 12th Meeting of the International Society of Sexually Transmitted Diseases Research, Seville, Spain. 1997.

• Contact: Mary Kamb (404) 639-2080.

13. O’Donnell LN, San Doval A, Duran R, et al. Video-based sexually transmitted disease patient education: its impact on condom acquisition . American Journal of Public Health. 1995;85:817-822

• Contact: Lydia O’Donnell, Education Development Center, (617) 969-7100 X2368.

14. US Conference of Mayors. Sexual Health and STDs: an avenue to HIV prevention services. AIDS Information Exchange. 1995:12:6-8.

Contact: Kevin Harris (206) 322-7061 x233.

Prepared by Pamela DeCarlo* and Nancy Padian PhD** *CAPS, **UCSF Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences

December 1997. Fact Sheet #31E

Reproduction of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California San Francisco should be cited as the source of this information. For additional copies of this and other HIV Prevention Fact Sheets, please call the National AIDS Clearinghouse at 800/458-5231. Comments and questions about this Fact Sheet may be e-mailed to [email protected]. © December 1997, University of California

How Can Service Providers and Researchers Collaborate in HIV Prevention?

Why collaborate?

“Research on HIV prevention—no matter how good—does not stop HIV infection. HIV behavioral research can only stop HIV infection when results of the research can be used to make applied programs better.”¹ -Jeff Kelly

Everyone working in HIV prevention wants to know that their efforts make a difference towards halting the spread of HIV. When researchers and community-based organizations (CBOs) collaborate, the outcome can be better community programs and better science, resulting in improved HIV prevention. Researchers need to learn about how health education and community organizing programs function in order to evaluate or create interventions that are feasible in real world settings. They also need to gain access to research participants (clients of CBOs) and disseminate research findings in the most useful way. Working with CBOs and their clients can improve research.”² The mission of most CBOs is program delivery, not evaluation. CBOs may need to collaborate with a researcher when using tested interventions, evaluating ongoing programs and incorporating theory into intervention design. Working with researchers can improve programs.”³ Federal, state, local and private funders are increasingly requiring CBOs both to use theory in designing programs and to evaluate their programs.

What does collaboration involve?

Researchers and service providers can work together in many ways and the degree of collaboration can vary. Collaboration can be a simple act that is not very time consuming, such as CBOs getting help with questions on a survey or researchers learning more about client populations. Even if the relationship between a researcher and service provider is limited, there are ways to bring the expertise of all participants together and optimize outcomes of their joint work. Collaboration can also be relatively complex and time- and resource-intensive. Service providers and researchers may collaborate on program evaluation, program design, data analysis or research. Typically, these collaborations involve 1) selecting the researcher and CBO partner; 2) developing a relationship; 3) deciding on a research or programmatic question; 4) conducting the research or evaluation; 5) analyzing and interpreting the data; and 6) disseminating the findings.”⁴ The last step in the collaboration would involve developing programs based on the research findings.

What are barriers to collaboration?

Collaboration can be understood as a cross-cultural experience: a meeting of the culture of research and the culture of CBOs. Researchers and providers have distinct work cultures including norms, incentives, jargon, sense of time, resources, training, education, and expectations, that are often at odds with each other.”⁵ For example, CBO staff often must respond to clients with immediate needs. Researchers, on the other hand, often work on 2-5 year grants with more long-term objectives. While their common goal may be slowing the epidemic, each has different contributions and strategies for achieving that end. Often CBOs mistrust researchers. Researchers are seen as “using” the CBO, collecting data with no return of information and taking all of the credit.”⁶ Service providers often see researchers as over-resourced. For example, CBO staff may be paid far less than the researchers they collaborate with. On the other hand, researchers are often frustrated by the fast pace, limited staff time and lack of prioritization of research activities found in CBOs. An inherent power imbalance exists when researchers and CBOs work together on research projects. Researchers are often seen as “experts” by virtue of their academic degree. The expertise of CBO staff—knowledge of the community, understanding how interventions work and access to the population—is often overlooked and undervalued by researchers.

What’s being done?

One simple yet vital method of collaboration is making sure that data collected by the researcher is available to CBOs to use. The University of British Columbia in Canada conducted a large-scale study of health care and community resources used by persons living with HIV/AIDS. After the study, they hired a Community Liaison Researcher to work with CBOs to jointly determine their information needs, and conduct tailored analyses of the large and valuable database for use in CBO programs.”⁷ Another more complex method of collaboration involves working together from the beginning to develop programs. The San Francisco AIDS Foundation (SFAF) wanted to understand why gay/bisexual men were continuing to become HIV-infected. They initiated a collaboration with CAPS, UCSF to conduct qualitative research among high-risk men. SFAF and research staff met weekly to discuss the research question, design the instrument and discuss the transcripts. This led to the agencies collaboratively developing and evaluating two interventions and a media campaign. The programs, Gay Life and Black Brothers Esteem, are ongoing.”⁸ Collaborations often require a solid infrastructure for support. In San Francisco, CA, the CAPS collaboration initiative provided funding, training, supervision, technical assistance and researcher pairing for CBOs to conduct program evaluation. This initiative was jointly funded through the university and private funders. CBOs developed research questions and conducted evaluation with the aid of researchers. Findings were disseminated through public forums and a special issue of a journal. This collaborative model has been replicated across the US.”⁹

What are best practices?

Although collaborating can be a resource and labor-intensive activity, the benefits for the CBO, researcher and the field of HIV prevention are worth the investment. The following recommendations can help ensure a successful experience:^10,11

• Choose CBO or researcher partners carefully. Interview several different individuals or agencies. Always ask for and check references.
• Establish buy-in, input and ownership from agency staff and directors.
• Define roles and responsibilities clearly and repeatedly.
• Plan and budget for time for CBO-researcher communication and meetings.
• Address conflict when it arises.
• Allow flexibility to modify or change the scope of research.
• Expect staff turnover and allow time to orient and train new staff.
• Support agencies to build capacity before engaging in outcome research. Formative, descriptive and theory-development research are useful; outcome evaluation is not always the best choice for new interventions or new CBOs.
• Build a safety net into the research design. If you are evaluating a new intervention, make sure to include alternative research questions from the start.
• Plan for community dissemination strategies throughout all stages of research.
• Jointly monitor for research quality control.
• Secure adequate resources and support for intervention and evaluation time.

What supports collaboration?

There are some recent initiatives that support collaborative work, including federal, foundation and university grants. Funders, however, still need to set aside money for researchers and CBOs to work together, and the requirement for this should be structured into the grant.”¹² This way, much-needed program funds aren’t diverted into research. Local and state health departments can help by matching CBOs and researchers and then fostering the collaboration. In addition to requiring adequate funding, collaboration requires time, energy and commitment. Without support for these basic requirements, the ultimate goal of collaboration—more effective HIV prevention—will not be achieved.

Says who?

1. Kelly JA, Somlai AM, DiFranceisco WJ, et al. Bridging the gap between the science and service of HIV prevention: transferring effective research-based HIV prevention interventions to community AIDS service providers . American Journal of Public Health. 2000;90:1082-1088. 2. Schensul JJ. O rganizing community research partnerships in the struggle against AIDS . Health Education & Behavior. 1999; 26:266-283. 3. Holtgrave DR, Qualls NL, Curran JW, et al. An overview of the effectiveness and efficiency of HIV prevention programs . Public Health Reports. 1995;110:134-146. 4. Harper GW, Salinan DD. Building collaborative partnerships to improve community-based HIV prevention research: The university-CBO collaborative partnership (UCCP) model. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community. 2000;19:1-20. 5. Gomez C, Goldstein E. The HIV prevention evaluation initiative: a model for collaborative and empowerment evaluation. In: The Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability . Fetterman, Wandersman and Kaftarian, eds. Sage Publications, 1995. 6. Perkins DD, Wandersman A. “You’ll have to overcome our suspicions”: the benefits and pitfalls of research with community organizations. Social Policy. 1990;21:32-41. 7. James S, Hanvelt R, Copley T. The role of the Community Liaison Researcher- returning research to the community. Presented at the AIDS Impact Conference, Ottawa. July 15-18, 1999. 8. Bey J, Durazzo R, Headlee J, et al. Prevention among african american gay and bisexual men. Presented at the 8th International AIDS Conference, Durban, South Africa. Abst# WePeD4523. 9. Haynes Sanstad K, Stall R, Goldtsein E, et al. Collaborative Community Research Consortium: a model for HIV prevention. Health Education & Behavior. 1999;26:171-184. 10. Goldstein E, Freedman B, Richards A, et al. The Legacy Project: lessons learned about conducting community-based research. Published by the AIDS Research Institute, University of California San Francisco, Science to Community series. 2000. prevention.ucsf.edu/uploads/bibindex.php . 11. Acuff C, Archambeault J, Greenberg B, et al. Mental health care for people living with or affected by HIV/AIDS: A practical guide. Published by the Research Triangle Institute. 1999. #6031. 12. DiFranceisco W, Kelly JA, Otto-Salaj L. Factors influencing attitudes within AIDS service organizations toward the use of research-based HIV prevention interventions . AIDS Education and Prevention. 1999;11:72-86. Resources: Behavioral and Social Science Volunteer Program (BSSV) American Psychological Association 750 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C., 20002-4242 202/218-3993 Fax: 202/336-6198 e-mail: [email protected] https://www.apa.org/topics/hiv-aids HIV Community-Based Research www.cbrc.net Loka Institute PO Box 355 Amherst, MA 01004 413/559-5860 https://centerhealthyminds.org/programs/loka-initiative 

PREPARED BY Ellen Goldstein MA*, Beth Freedman MPH*, Dan Wohlfeiler MPH** *CAPS, **STD Prevention Training Center April 2001. Fact Sheet #40E

Reproduction of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California San Franciso should be cited as the source of this information. For additional copies of this and other HIV Prevention Fact Sheets, please call the National Prevention Information Network at 800/458-5231. Comments and questions about this Fact Sheet may be e-mailed to [email protected]. ©April 2001, University of California