Coalition PLUS, Community-based Research Laboratory, Pantin, France.
Aix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Sciences Economiques & Sociales de la Santé & Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Marseille, France.
J Int AIDS Soc. 2019 Aug;22 Suppl 6(Suppl Suppl 6):e25351. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25351.
While bio-behavioural interventions (BIs) for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV prevention have shown their effectiveness (e.g. treatment for syphilis, HPV vaccination or pre-exposure prophylaxis [PrEP]), they have also aroused major concerns regarding behavioural changes that could counteract their benefit. Risk compensation (RC) fears concerning BIs in the HIV/STIs prevention field are intimately linked to representations, judgements and social control on sexual behaviour. With an increasing number of PrEP studies describing a rise in STIs due to RC, this paper argues for a shift away from the focus on RC and proposes a more constructive approach to respond to the needs of people living with HIV and populations most at risk.
The concept of RC, stemming from road safety and derived from economic theory, relies on rational theoretical models of human behaviour. Although widely applied in several contexts its use has been reasonably questioned. Major methodological issues regarding RC have been raised within HIV/AIDS literature. Although behavioural changes (e.g. condomless sex and number of sexual partners) are often erroneously assimilated with RC, there is no evidence that behavioural changes have undermined the effectiveness of previous and current BIs. Still, PrEP has not escaped RC concerns. Increases in condomless sex within the context of growing uptake of PrEP signals a continued need for integrated and innovative HIV and STI prevention strategies and a comprehensive sexual health approach. Routine HIV/STI testing, peer-led counselling, and identification of sexual health needs within the PrEP model of care could become a gold standard in the sexual health field for all populations.
RC remains a frequent argument against the availability and provision of prevention methods for vulnerable populations. Individuals should be able to benefit from the full panel of BIs options available, to find and adapt methods according to their needs. Current, past and future PrEP users, with other stakeholders, may provide valuable insight into innovative solutions and programmes to control HIV and other STIs.
生物行为干预措施(BIs)在预防性传播感染(STIs)和 HIV 方面已被证明具有有效性(例如梅毒治疗、HPV 疫苗接种或暴露前预防 [PrEP]),但它们也引起了人们对可能抵消其益处的行为变化的极大关注。HIV/STIs 预防领域中,针对 BIs 的风险补偿(RC)担忧与性行为的代表性、判断和社会控制密切相关。随着越来越多的 PrEP 研究表明,由于 RC,STIs 有所增加,本文主张不再关注 RC,并提出一种更具建设性的方法,以满足 HIV 感染者和高危人群的需求。
RC 这一概念源自道路安全领域,并源自经济理论,它依赖于人类行为的理性理论模型。尽管它在多个领域得到广泛应用,但也受到了合理质疑。在 HIV/AIDS 文献中,人们对 RC 提出了一些主要的方法学问题。虽然性行为的改变(例如无保护性行为和性伴侣数量的增加)经常被错误地等同于 RC,但没有证据表明这些行为的改变削弱了以前和当前 BIs 的有效性。然而,PrEP 仍未能避免 RC 的担忧。在 PrEP 使用率不断提高的背景下,无保护性行为的增加表明,仍需要综合和创新的 HIV 和 STI 预防策略以及全面的性健康方法。在 PrEP 护理模式中,常规进行 HIV/STI 检测、同伴主导的咨询以及确定性健康需求,可能成为所有人群性健康领域的黄金标准。
RC 仍然是反对为弱势群体提供预防方法的常见论据。个人应该能够从现有的全套 BI 选项中受益,根据自己的需求找到并调整方法。当前、过去和未来的 PrEP 用户以及其他利益相关者,可能会为控制 HIV 和其他 STIs 的创新解决方案和计划提供宝贵的见解。