Library

The following surveys were used with the Healthy Oakland Teens project at an urban, ethnically diverse junior high school. The project’s goal is to reduce adolescents’ risk for HIV infection by using peer role models to advocate for responsible decision making, healthy values and norms, and improved communication skills. Adult and student evaluations of peer educators were conducted, but these are unfortunately unavailable. Instrument: Teen knowledge, attitude, behavior, belief (KABB) questionnaire Scoring: Please read the detailed description of the instruments.  Reliability and/or validity: Ekstrand ML, Siegel D, Nido V, Faigeles B, Krasnovsky F, Battle R, Cummings G, Chiment E, and Coates TJ (1996). Peer-led AIDS prevention delays sexual debut among U.S. junior high school students. Oral presentation to the XI International Conference on AIDS, Vancouver, Canada.

Can an HIV Vaccine make a Difference?

why do we need an HIV vaccine?

Vaccines are among the most powerful and cost-effective disease prevention tools available. A vaccine that could prevent HIV infection or stop progression of the disease would greatly help in the fight against the AIDS pandemic. Vaccines have been pivotal in worldwide smallpox elimination efforts, have nearly eliminated polio and have drastically reduced the incidence of infectious diseases like measles and pertussis in the US. A crucial question is whether a vaccine based on one strain of HIV would be effective for populations in which a different strain is predominant. There are also questions about how an HIV vaccine would protect individuals: the vaccine might not be able to actually prevent infection, but could prevent or delay progression to disease, or simply reduce the infectiousness of people who do become infected with HIV. HIV prevention education and counseling are important components of vaccine programs. Even after the release of a vaccine, there will be an ongoing need for effective behavioral prevention programs. An HIV vaccine will not be a “magic bullet” but it could play an extremely powerful role as part of a package of prevention interventions.

has progress been made?

Twenty-two years into the epidemic, researchers are still struggling with the daunting scientific challenges involved in HIV vaccine research: 1) traditional approaches to vaccine design (i.e. use of inactivated or attenuated viruses) are considered too dangerous with HIV; 2) the virus is highly variable and mutates rapidly; 3) the viral infection is permanent, full recovery from HIV has not been documented, and thus, it is unclear how the body could mount an effective immune response and 4) there is no perfect animal model for use in AIDS vaccine research.¹ There is still no HIV vaccine that has been tested and found to be effective. There have been over 70 small-scale human clinical trials of over 35 different candidate HIV vaccines, but only one product, AIDSVAX, produced by VaxGen, has been tested in a large-scale (Phase III) trial. Unfortunately, two separate trials of AIDSVAX conducted in 1) North America, Puerto Rico and the Netherlands² and 2) Thailand, found that the vaccine did not prevent HIV infection in the overall study populations and did not slow progression of disease among participants who became HIV-infected during the trial.³ A successful HIV vaccine would train the immune system to recognize HIV before it does extensive damage. Vaccine concepts now in development use a variety of methods to train the immune system to recognize parts of HIV without exposing people to HIV itself. Early AIDS vaccine research focused on developing bio-engineered vaccines that represent a portion of HIV’s outer surface (envelope) protein. Different vaccine approaches are currently in development, none of which include the actual virus (HIV) and none of which can cause a recipient to acquire HIV from the vaccine itself.

what is the impact on HIV prevention?

An effective HIV vaccine cannot take the place of HIV prevention efforts, any more than prevention efforts can take the place of a vaccine. The best way to address the HIV pandemic is using multiple interventions at multiple levels, and the protective power of a vaccine could one day be of enormous benefit in HIV prevention. There have been increases in sexual risk behavior in men who have sex with men (MSM) since the advent of ART (antiretroviral treatment).⁴ There is concern that when a vaccine becomes available there could be similar increases in risk behavior among people who receive the HIV vaccine because they feel they can’t become infected with HIV. In the VaxGen efficacy trial in North America, younger participants and MSM who believed they had received the actual vaccine rather than a placebo were more likely to report unprotected anal intercourse during the trial. Overall, self-reported risk behavior did not increase throughout the trial.⁵ In the VaxGen efficacy trial in Thailand, injecting drug users reported decreases in injection drug use and needle sharing during the first 12 months of the trial.⁶ This may have been due to the prevention education and risk-reduction counseling received.

what are the ethical issues?

HIV vaccines can only be tested for safety and effectiveness if thousands of individuals are willing to participate in clinical trials. These trials raise concerns about the potential harm to trial participants. Certain HIV vaccines may cause trial volunteers to test HIV+ on standard HIV antibody tests, even though they are not infected with the virus. A positive HIV test result could expose individuals to discrimination in health insurance, employment and immigration, or lead to social stigma. The simple act of participating in an HIV vaccine trial may result in someone being labeled as a “high risk” individual, a gay person or a drug user, and discrimination against these and other groups is a very real issue in many places. It is the responsibility of researchers to ensure that vaccine trial participants receive assistance to alleviate the risks of discrimination or other harm that may result.⁷ Communities must be closely involved in clinical trial design and implementation. Researchers also need to ensure that true informed consent is acquired before individuals are enrolled in a vaccine trial. Community members and potential volunteers need to be fully informed about the vaccine trial process and must understand such concepts as “placebo,” “randomization” and “blinding” to be able to truly evaluate whether participation is right for them. Using community educators and peers to help with the community education that accompanies HIV vaccine research will also help increase participants’ understanding and acceptance of vaccine trials.⁸

what are barriers?

Much of the expertise to develop and manufacture HIV vaccines rests in private-sector pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Yet industry commitment to HIV vaccines has not matched the enormity of the public health need.^9,10 An HIV vaccine will only bring the pandemic under control if it is widely available in the developing world, where more than 95% of new HIV infections are occurring. People in resource-poor countries have often had to wait a decade or more for vaccines after they have been licensed for use in industrialized nations.^11,12 There are numerous challenges to HIV vaccine access in addition to price. Marginal health care infrastructures in some developing countries may make it difficult to distribute a vaccine. Even countries that can afford vaccines may not see them as a high priority and may not allocate adequate resources to fund research or vaccine purchase. Vaccination programs generally focus on children. With HIV, it is sexually active adolescents and adults who will need a vaccine most immediately, necessitating new approaches to immunization. Vaccine acceptance may be problematic in communities where there is a distrust of government or stigma in being associated with HIV/AIDS.

what needs to be done?

Public sector funding for research on HIV vaccines has increased in recent years, and additional resources are needed. The private sector must be encouraged to invest in HIV and other priority vaccines through a range of incentives, including direct funding, public support for clinical research infrastructure and product manufacture, and through public/private partnerships.⁹ Wealthy governments should commit in advance to purchase AIDS vaccines for people in the developing world. Continued political leadership is needed to prioritize resources for vaccines. Vaccine trials conducted to date have included HIV prevention education and risk reduction counseling. Vaccine trials can further benefit participants by offering drug treatment services and STD screening and treatment. Combining medical, behavioral and psychological efforts as part of a vaccine initiative can be a powerful tool for combatting the HIV pandemic. Vaccines are an integral part of an effective disease prevention strategy, and vaccine development is critical in arresting the spread of HIV. Yet, a vaccine alone will not eliminate the social and structural conditions that created and fuel the epidemic. Even when HIV vaccines are available, communities will continue to need quality behavioral interventions to control the HIV epidemic and policies that ensure access to vaccines. Prepared by Chris Collins, MPP, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition

Says who?

1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Challenges in designing AIDS vaccines. May 2003. www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/challvacc.htm 2. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. Understanding the results of the AIDSVAX trial. May 2003. https://www.avac.org/sites/default/files/resource-files/understanding_a…; 3. VaxGen Announces Results of its Phase III HIV Vaccine Trial in Thailand: Vaccine Fails to Meet Endpoints. Press release from VaxGen. www.vaxgen.com/pressroom/ 4. Valdiserri RO. Preventing new HIV infections in the US: what can we hope to achieve? Presented at the 10th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Boston, MA. February 10-14, 2003. 5. Bartholow B. Risk behavior and HIV seroincidence in the US trial of AIDSVAX B/B. Presented at the AIDS Vaccine 2003 Conference, New York, NY. September 2003. 6. Vanichseni S, van Griensven F, Phasithiphol B, et al. Decline in HIV risk behavior among injection drug users in the AIDSVAX B/E vaccine trial in Bangkok, Thailand. Presented at the XIV International AIDS Conference, Barcelona, Spain. July 2002. 7. UNAIDS. Guidance Document on Ethical Considerations in HIV Preventive Vaccine Research. June 2002. 8. van Loon KV, Lindegger GC, Slack CM. Informed consent: A review of the experiences of South African clinical trial researchers. Presented at the XIV International AIDS Conference, Barcelona, Spain. July 2002. Abst #TuOrG1170. 9. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. https://www.avac.org/avac-report 10. Klausner RD, Fauci AS, Corey L, et al. The need for a global HIV vaccine enterprise. Science. 2003;300:2036-2039. 11. Public health considerations for the use of a first generation HIV vaccine: Report from a WHO-UNAIDS-CDC Consultation, Geneva, 20-21 November 2002. AIDS. 2003;17:W1-W10. 12. International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. AIDS Vaccines for the New World: Preparing Now to Assure Access. July 2000. www.iavi.org Resources AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (AVAC) 101 West 23rd St. #2227 New York, NY 10011 212/367-1021 www.avac.org HIV InSite: Vaccine Overview http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=kb-08-01-11 HIV Vaccine Trials Network http://www.hvtn.org International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) 110 William Street New York, NY 10038-3901 212/847-1111 www.iavi.org National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Division of AIDS Vaccines www.niaid.nih.gov/aidsvaccine NIAID Vaccine Research Center https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/vrc

January 2004. Fact Sheet #38ER Special thanks to the following reviewers of this Fact Sheet: Barbara Adler, Emily Bass, Mark Boaz, Susan Buchbinder, Jose Esparza, Jorge Flores, Paula Frew, Ingelise Gordon, Ashraf Grimwood, Margaret McCluskey, Catherine Slack, Robert Smith, Steven Tierney, Steven Wakefield, Doug Wassenaar, Sandra Wearins, Dan Wohlfeiler.

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]. © January 2004, University of California

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 necesita el hombre heterosexual en la prevención del VIH?

revisado 4/01

¿está el hombre heterosexual en riesgo?

Sí. En los EEUU los casos nuevos de SIDA reflejan un incremento en las infecciones por uso de drogas intravenosas (UDI) y por contacto sexual heterosexual.¹ El aumento de infecciones en hombres heterosexuales por UDI ha elevado los casos de VIH en las mujeres ya que más mujeres se están infectando al tener sexo con hombres UDI. El cambio de conducta del hombre heterosexual es determinante para controlar la epidemia en los hombres heterosexuales, las mujeres y los niños. Más de la cuarta parte (28%) de todos los casos de SIDA en hombres en los EEUU se producen por UDI y por relaciones sexuales heterosexuales. De estos casos, más de tres cuartos se dan en hombres de raza no blanca (caucásica), de los cuales más de la mitad (55%) son afroamericanos.² Los casos de VIH/SIDA (según el Centro de Control de Enfermedades (CDC) de EEUU) se clasifican por conductas de riesgo (consumo de drogas/práctica sexual) y no por autoidentificación de género ó preferencia sexual. A los hombres que se autoidentifican como heterosexuales y que tienen sexo con otros hombres se les categoriza como “hombres que tienen sexo con hombres”; los cuales, no necesariamente llegan a identificarse con los programas dirigidos a hombres gay. Los programas de prevención para hombres heterosexuales en los EEUU han tocado los temas en cuanto al uso de drogas, pero pocos han considerado la conducta sexual. Las intervenciones para el cambio de conducta en heterosexuales se han dirigido principalmente a las mujeres, Si los hombres participan es secundario ya que la intervención no estaba dirigida a ellos.

¿qué pone a los hombres en riesgo?

UDI representa el mayor riesgo para el hombre heterosexual. Las drogas no inyectables como las anfetaminas, la cocaína-crack y el alcohol, incrementan que se tomen riesgos en la conducta sexual, aumentando así el riesgo de infección con VIH. Un estudio en drogadictos UDI que no están en tratamiento de desintoxicación, determinó que los hombres que consumieron metanfetaminas tuvieron más parejas sexuales, mayor actividad sexualcon penetración anal en hombres y en mujeresy menor uso del condón, que aquellos que no las consumieron.³ El hombre puede infectarse al tener sexo desprotegido con una mujer VIH+, aunque el riesgo es mucho menor que el asociado con compartir jeringas infectadas o el sexo con otro hombre VIH+. El riesgo aumenta si la pareja masculina o femenina tiene alguna enfermedad de transmisión sexual (ETS).⁴ La conducta sexual de mayor riesgo para el heterosexual es el sexo anal desprotegido con otro hombre VIH+. Quizá por homofobia o miedo al rechazo, los hombres no se atreven a reportar el tener sexo con otros hombres, identificando el sexo con mujeres como su único factor de riesgo.⁵ En ciertos ambientes los hombres corren un riesgo mayor. En los EEUU, el 90% de los prisioneros son hombres. Las tasas de VIH entre los encarcelados son 8 a 10 veces mayores que en la población en general.⁶ El uso de drogas inyectables, de otras drogas ilícitas, el tatuaje y el sexo anal desprotegido entre hombres son conductas de riesgo en las prisiones.

¿qué es lo que dificulta la prevención?

En esta sociedad a los hombres no se les educa para que cuiden su salud, muchos no reciben atención médica desde la infancia hasta la edad madura (a los 40 años aproximadamente).⁷ Los hombres heterosexuales, y en especial los afroamericanos, son los más reacios para hacerse la prueba del VIH, recibir tratamiento y acudir a las citas médicas.^8,9 Muchos hombres heterosexuales no sólo saben muy poco sobre VIH/ETS, sino que tampoco creen que les concierne. Por falta de material educativo para hombres heterosexuales y de educadores de pares, el hombre heterosexual considera al VIH como un problema exclusivo del “hombre gay blanco.” El hombre es quien porta el condón (masculino) y quien tiene el poder de usarlo o no. Aunque el embarazo, las ETS y el VIH le preocupen, al hombre le puede ser difícil hablar sobre el uso del condón con su pareja. Algunos esperan que sea la pareja femenina quien mencione el tema; si ésta no lo hacen es común que ellos tampoco.¹⁰ Los jóvenes de razas no blancas frecuentemente se perciben así mismos como una “especie en peligro de extinción.”¹¹ Para muchos jóvenes urbanos de áreas marginales, el peligro y la lucha diaria por sobrevivir rebasa las preocupaciones sobre el futuro como el VIH. La pobreza, violencia y adicción refuerzan las creencias del hombre negro de que no vivirá más 25 años. Para muchos de éstos jóvenes, el recibir un balazo o acabar en prisión son sus mayores preocupaciones.¹¹

¿cómo involucrar al hombre heterosexual?

Los educadores de pares pueden ayudar a la prevención del VIH en el hombre heterosexual, aunque muy pocos hombres heterosexuales actualmente participan en la prevención del VIH. El temor y la concepción errónea de la cultura gay inhiben aún más su participación. Se necesita una educación que concientice a los hombres en general para entender y respetar los límites y las culturas sexuales. Reclutar a hombres heterosexuales puede ser una tarea difícil. Por ejemplo, abordar individualmente al afroamericano no es tan eficaz como hacerlo a través de su trabajo, líder religioso o grupo social. Además, el hombre heterosexual puede necesitar la motivación de la novia o esposa para participar en programas de prevención del VIH.¹² Las campañas dirigidas al hombre heterosexual deben centrarse en temas generales de salud, no sólo en temas sexuales. Las campañas deben promover que los hombres hablen y se responsabilicen de su salud y bienestar, y no resaltar el lado negativo del sexo (ej.: el VIH mata, tener sexo con un(a) menor puede llevarte a la cárcel). La educación debe empezar en la pre-adolescencia para así ayudar a los jóvenes a protegerse a sí mismos cuando se enfrenten el mundo de la sexualidad y las drogas.

¿qué se ha hecho?

Un programa de desarrollo de destrezas para la prevención del VIH basado en el uso de videos y diseñado para afroamericanos heterosexuales de Atlanta, ayudó a incrementar el uso del condón y redujo el sexo vaginal desprotegido. El programa mostró información videograbada sobre VIH, preguntas y respuestas y demostró el uso del condón. Además se incorporaron moderadores en vivo. Como los hombres se limitan a participar en demostraciones de situaciones sexuales, se les pidió que sugirieran diálogos relacionados con prácticas sexuales más seguras para escenas específicas de películas populares.¹³ Le Penseur Youth Services ofrece servicios educativos a jóvenes y familias del sureste de Chicago. Uno de sus programas está dirigido a miembros de pandillas e incorpora a líderes pandilleros como educadores. Le Penseur adiestró a líderes y otros miembros de pandillas para transmitir mensajes sobre sexo seguro. Un componente clave es asignar papeles definidos a estos jóvenes y oportunidades de progreso y liderazgo. Éstos jóvenes también llevaron a su casa el mensaje de que el VIH afecta al hombre heterosexual, lo que aumentó la conciencia sobre el VIH en la comunidad.¹⁴ En Baltimore, el departamento de salud abrió un Centro de Salud Masculino gratuito que sirve a hombres sin seguro médico entre las edades de 16 a 64 años. La clínica ofrece atención primaria y dental, consejería para drogodependientes, educación sobre prevención y oportunidades de empleo. El personal de salud es masculino. Cuando este centro abrió, era el único en los EEUU dirigido a los hombres sin seguro médico. El enfoque del centro es ayudar a los hombres a que se mantengan sanos, contribuyendo así a crear familias sanas.¹⁵

¿qué queda por hacer?

El hombre heterosexual aún necesita información básica sobre VIH y requiere de programas que protejan su salud y le enseñen cómo obtener servicios para su salud. Los programas deben considerar que el hombre heterosexual puede tener sexo con otros hombres y deben promover el sexo seguro en cada encuentro sexual. Finalmente, estos programas deben crearse junto con las mujeres para incorporar así las necesidades e inquietudes de la pareja femenina. El tratamiento anti-drogas y el acceso a jeringas estériles que ofrecen los programas de intercambio de jeringas e intercambio en farmacias son cruciales para los hombres heterosexuales. Los hombres encarcelados necesitan tener acceso a tratamientos para la desintoxicación, condones, jeringas estériles, educación sobre prevención del VIH y asesoramiento para la transición de la cárcel a la calle que disminuya el riesgo dentro y fuera de la cárcel. El hombre heterosexual debe tomar más responsabilidad para evitar el contagio del VIH. Como tradicionalmente el hombre no ha participado en asuntos de salud y prevención, hay que apoyarlo y adiestrarlo para asegurar su participación en la prevención del VIH.

¿quién lo dice?

1. CDC. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report . 1995;7:10. 2. CDC. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report . 2001;13:16. 3.. Molitor F, Ruiz JD, Flynn N, et al. Methamphetamine use and sexual and injection risk behaviors among out-of-treatment injection drug users . American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 1999;25:475-493. 4. Wasserheit JN. Epidemiological synergy. Interrelationships between human immunodeficiency virus infection and other sexually transmitted diseases . Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 1992;19:61-77. 5. Sternberg S. ‘Secret’ bisexuality among Black men contributes to rising number of AIDS cases in Black women. USA Today. March 15, 2001. 6. Hammett TM, Harmon P, Maruschak L. 1996-1997 Update: HIV/AIDS, STDs and TB in correctional facilities. Abt Associates, Inc .: Cambridge, MA; 1999. 7. Sandman D, Simantov E, An C. O . Published by The Commonwealth Fund. March 2000. 8. Fichtner RR, Wolitski RJ, Johnson WD, et al. Influence of perceived and assessed risk on STD clinic clients’ acceptance of HIV testing, return for test results, and HIV serostatus. Psychology, Health & Medicine. 1996;1:83-98. 9. Israelski D, Gore-Felton G, Wood MJ, et al. Factors associated with keeping medical appointments in a public health AIDS clinic. Presented at the 8th International AIDS Conference, Durban, South Africa. Abst# WePeD4570. 10. Carter JA, McNair LD, Corbin WR. Gender differences related to heterosexual condom use: the influence of negotiation styles . Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. 1999;25:217-225. 11. Parham TA, McDavis RJ. Black men, an endangered species: Who’s really pulling the trigger? Journal of Counseling & Development. 1987;66:24-27. 12. Summerrise R, Wilson W. “The Black Print” model for recruitment of African-American males. Published by the Chicago, IL, Prevention Planning Group. 2000. 13. Kalichman SC, Cherry C, Brown-Sperling F. Effectiveness of a video-based motivational skills-building HIV risk-reduction intervention for inner-city African American men . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1999;67:959-966. 14. Summerrise R. Valuing the lives of men: HIV prevention for heterosexual men. Presented at the US Conference on AIDS, Atlanta, GA. October, 2000. 15.Sugg DK. A first for men: clinic opens in Baltimore . The Baltimore Sun. May 11, 2000. Preparado por Reginald Summerrise* y Pamela DeCarlo**, Traducción Romy Benard y Maricarmen Arjona** *Le Penseur Youth Services, Chicago, IL; **CAPS Septiembre 2001. Hoja Informativa 22SR