학술논문
Exploring group differences in the response to a sexual risk reduction intervention to prevent hepatitis C virus reinfection in HIV-infected MSM: a mixed-methods study.
Document Type
Article
Author
Source
Subject
*HEPATITIS C prevention
*HEPATITIS C risk factors
*RISK assessment
*SEXUAL partners
*HUMAN services programs
*INTRAVENOUS drug abuse
*HEALTH attitudes
*RESEARCH funding
*HUMAN sexuality
*HIV-positive persons
*BEHAVIOR
*HIV infections
*GOAL (Psychology)
*DESCRIPTIVE statistics
*UNSAFE sex
*REINFECTION
*HARM reduction
*SEX customs
*MEN who have sex with men
*ANAL sex
*THEMATIC analysis
*RESEARCH methodology
*CONDOMS
*SAFE sex
*HEALTH behavior
*HOMOSEXUALITY
*SEX counseling
*PREVENTIVE health services
*DISEASE risk factors
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Language
ISSN
0954-0121
Abstract
To prevent hepatitis C virus (HCV) reinfection, within the Swiss HCVree Trial, a preventive risk reduction intervention was implemented alongside curative treatment. Formative qualitative research identified three response patterns to the intervention. This mixed-methods study's aim was to cross-validate group differences in (a) the content of sexual risk reduction goals set during intervention and (b) the extent of their behavioural change in condomless anal intercourse with non-steady partners (nsCAI), sexualised and intravenous drug use at start and six-month post-intervention. Qualitative thematic analysis was used to summarise goal setting domains. Quantitative descriptive analysis was used to evaluate group differences based on assumptions of the group descriptions. Results largely confirmed assumptions on inter-group response differences in goal setting and behaviour: as expected group 1 Avoid risks showed the lowest HCV risk profile with changes in nsCAI. Group 2 Minimize-risks and Group 3 Accept-risks showed unchanged nsCAI. Group 3 had the highest HCV risk profile. Differences in their goal preferences (1: condom use; 2 reduction blood exposure; 3 safer dating) highlight diversity in attitudes to behavioural change. Our results improve understanding of variability in intervention responses such as changes in attitudes and behaviour. This provides evidence for intervention tailoring and outcome measurement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]