MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Level 2, Faculty Building South Kensington Campus, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
Biomedical Research and Training Institute, 10 Seagrave Avondale, Harare, Zimbabwe.
BMC Womens Health. 2024 Nov 6;24(1):592. doi: 10.1186/s12905-024-03428-x.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is widespread in the WHO African region with generalised HIV epidemics and may contribute to ongoing HIV transmission through its associations with behaviours associated with HIV acquisition risk and low use of prevention methods particularly in marital relationships.
We conducted a male condom HIV prevention cascade analysis using data from a general-population survey in Manicaland, Zimbabwe (July 2018-December 2019) to develop an understanding of how interventions that reduce IPV might be built upon to also reduce HIV incidence. Multivariable logistic regression was used to measure associations between currently-married HIV-negative women's experience of IPV and: (1) being in the priority population for HIV prevention methods (i.e. married women engaging in behaviours associated with HIV acquisition risk or with a spouse who engages in similar behaviours or is living with HIV), and (2) male condom use by women in this priority population. Male condom HIV prevention cascades, with explanatory barriers for gaps between successive cascade bars (motivation, access and effective use), were compared for women in the priority population reporting and not reporting IPV.
We found a positive association between IPV and being in the priority population for HIV prevention methods (72.3% versus 58.5%; AOR = 2.26, 95% CI:1.74-2.93). Condom use was low (< 15%) for women in the priority population and did not differ between those reporting and not reporting IPV. The HIV prevention cascades for women reporting and not reporting IPV were similar; both showing large gaps in motivation and capacity to use male condoms effectively. Women reporting motivation and access to male condoms were more likely to report their partner being a barrier to condom use if they experienced IPV (84.8% versus 75.5%; AOR = 2.25, 95% CI:1.17-4.31).
The findings of this study support the case for trials of integrated IPV/HIV prevention interventions that are tailored to improve HIV risk perception among HIV-negative married women and to make condom provision more acceptable for this group.
亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)在世界卫生组织非洲区域普遍存在,且普遍存在艾滋病毒流行,可能会通过与艾滋病毒感染风险相关的行为以及预防方法的低使用率(特别是在婚姻关系中),对持续的艾滋病毒传播产生影响。
我们使用津巴布韦马尼卡兰地区一项普通人群调查(2018 年 7 月至 2019 年 12 月)的数据,开展了男性避孕套预防艾滋病毒传播的级联分析,以了解减少 IPV 的干预措施如何能够建立起来,从而也降低艾滋病毒发病率。多变量逻辑回归用于衡量目前已婚艾滋病毒阴性妇女经历 IPV 与以下两者之间的关联:(1)属于艾滋病毒预防方法的重点人群(即与艾滋病毒感染风险相关的行为或与有类似行为或感染艾滋病毒的配偶发生性行为的已婚妇女),以及(2)该重点人群中妇女使用男用避孕套。对报告和未报告 IPV 的重点人群中的妇女进行了男性避孕套预防艾滋病毒传播级联分析,并对连续级联栏之间的解释性差距(动机、获得和有效使用)进行了比较。
我们发现 IPV 与属于艾滋病毒预防方法的重点人群之间存在正相关(72.3%比 58.5%;优势比=2.26,95%置信区间:1.74-2.93)。重点人群中的妇女使用避孕套的比例较低(<15%),且报告和未报告 IPV 的妇女之间没有差异。报告和未报告 IPV 的妇女的艾滋病毒预防级联情况相似;两者在动机和有效使用男用避孕套的能力方面都存在较大差距。报告有使用避孕套的动机和途径的妇女,如果经历过 IPV,更有可能报告其伴侣是使用避孕套的障碍(84.8%比 75.5%;优势比=2.25,95%置信区间:1.17-4.31)。
这项研究的结果支持开展针对综合 IPV/艾滋病毒预防干预措施的试验,这些措施旨在提高艾滋病毒阴性已婚妇女对艾滋病毒风险的认识,并使该群体更容易接受避孕套的提供。