AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 1190–1200 | Cite as

Examining the Impact of Intimate Partner Violence Type and Timing on Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Awareness, Interest, and Coercion

  • Tiara C. Willie
  • Jamila K. Stockman
  • Nicole M. Overstreet
  • Trace S. Kershaw
Original Paper


Previous research suggests that intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with acceptability of and adherence to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). However, very few studies have examined whether the type (i.e., physical, sexual, and psychological IPV) and timing (i.e., lifetime, past-year) of IPV experiences differentially relate to PrEP awareness, interest, and perceived PrEP coercion. Therefore, the objective of this study is to examine associations between lifetime and past-year physical, sexual, and psychological IPV experiences on PrEP awareness, interest, and perceived PrEP coercion. Data were collected from an online survey administered to 210 women and men. Past-year physical IPV experiences (AOR 4.53, 95% CI 1.85, 11.11) were significantly associated with being interested in using PrEP. Lifetime sexual (AOR 3.69, 95% CI 1.62, 8.40), psychological IPV (AOR 4.70, 95% CI 1.01, 21.89), and past-year sexual IPV experiences (AOR 3.01, 95% CI 1.10, 8.27) were also significantly associated with believing a recent partner would attempt to control the participant’s use of PrEP, if she or he were currently using it. Understanding that engaging in PrEP care is influenced differently by the type and timing of IPV has potential implications for PrEP candidacy guidelines and interventions.


Intimate partner violence HIV PrEP 


La investigación anterior sugiere que la violencia del compañero íntimo (IPV) tiene que ver con admisibilidad de y adhesión a la profilaxis de preexposición (PrEP). Sin embargo, muy pocos estudios han examinado si el tipo (es decir, IPV físico, sexual, y psicológico) y calculando (es decir, vida, año pasado) de experiencias de IPV diferencialmente está relacionado con conciencia de PrEP, interés, y percibió la coacción de PrEP. Por lo tanto, el objetivo de este estudio es examinar asociaciones entre el año pasado y de toda la vida experiencias de IPV físicas, sexuales, y psicológicas en conciencia de PrEP, interés, y percibió la coacción de PrEP. Los datos se coleccionaron de una revisión en línea administrada a 210 mujeres y hombres. Año pasado experiencias de IPV físicas (AOR=4.53, 95% CI: 1.85, 11.11) considerablemente tuvieron que ver con interesar en la utilización de PrEP. Vida sexual (AOR=3.69, 95% CI: 1.62, 8.40), IPV psicológico (AOR=4.70, 95% CI: 1.01, 21.89), y año pasado experiencias de IPV sexuales (AOR=3.01, 95% CI: 1.10, 8.27) también considerablemente tuvieron que ver con creer que un compañero reciente intentaría controlar el uso del participante de PrEP, si ella o él lo usaran actualmente. El entendimiento que en la contratación en el cuidado de PrEP influyen diferentemente el tipo y el cronometraje de IPV tiene implicaciones potenciales para pautas de la candidatura de PrEP e intervenciones.



Supported by grants from the National Institutes of Mental Health (T32MH020031and F31MH113508-01A1).


  1. 1.
    Dunkle KL, Decker MR. Gender-based violence and HIV: reviewing the evidence for links and causal pathways in the general population and high-risk groups. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2013;69(s1):20–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li Y, Marshall CM, Rees HC, et al. Intimate partner violence and HIV infection among women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014. doi: 10.7448/IAS.17.1.18845.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maman S, Campbell J, Sweat MD, Gielen AC. The intersections of HIV and violence: directions for future research and interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50(4):459–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feldman MB, Díaz RM, Ream GL, El-Bassel N. Intimate partner violence and HIV sexual risk behavior among latino gay and bisexual men. J LGBT Health Res. 2008;3(2):9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heintz AJ, Melendez RM. Intimate partner violence and HIV/STD risk among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. J Interpers Violence. 2006;21(2):193–208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maman S, Mbwambo JK, Hogan NM, et al. HIV-positive women report more lifetime partner violence: findings from a voluntary counseling and testing clinic in dar es salaam, Tanzania. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(8):1331–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Overstreet NM, Willie TC, Hellmuth JC, Sullivan TP. Psychological intimate partner violence and sexual risk behavior: examining the role of distinct posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms in the partner violence–sexual risk link. Womens Health Issues. 2015;25(1):73–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stockman JK, Lucea MB, Campbell JC. Forced sexual initiation, sexual intimate partner violence and HIV risk in women: a global review of the literature. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(3):832–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prowse KM, Logue CE, Fantasia HC, Sutherland MA. Intimate partner violence and the CDC’s best-evidence HIV risk reduction interventions. Public Health Nurs. 2014;31(3):215–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Underhill K, Operario D, Skeer M, Mimiaga M, Mayer K. Packaging PrEP to prevent HIV: an integrated framework to plan for pre-exposure prophylaxis implementation in clinical practice. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55(1):8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ware NC, Wyatt MA, Haberer JE, et al. What’s love got to do with it? Explaining adherence to oral antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV serodiscordant couples. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012;59(5):463–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Administration FDA. Truvada for PrEP fact sheet: ensuring safe and proper use.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Braksmajer A, Senn TE, McMahon J. The potential of pre-exposure prophylaxis for women in violent relationships. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2016;30(6):274–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wingood GM, Dunkle K, Camp C, et al. Racial differences and correlates of potential adoption of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): results of a national survey. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63(01):S95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rubtsova A, Wingood GM, Dunkle K, Camp C. J DiClemente R. Young adult women and correlates of potential adoption of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): results of a national survey. Curr HIV Res. 2013;11(7):543–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Willie T, Kershaw T, Campbell JC, Alexander KA. Intimate partner violence and PrEP acceptability among low-income, young black women: Exploring the mediating role of reproductive coercion. AIDS Behav. 2017. doi: 10.1007/s10461-017-1767-9.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garfinkel DB, Alexander KA, McDonald-Mosley R, Willie TC, Decker MR. Predictors of HIV-related risk perception and PrEP acceptability among young adult female family planning patients. AIDS Care. 2016. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2016.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kelley CF, Kahle E, Siegler A, et al. Applying a PrEP continuum of care for men who have sex with men in Atlanta, GA. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(10):1590–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu A, Cohen S, Follansbee S, et al. Early experiences implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention in San Francisco. PLoS Med. 2014;11(3):e1001613.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li Y, Marshall CM, Rees HC, et al. Intimate partner violence and HIV infection among women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014;17(1):18845.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roberts ST, Haberer J, Celum C, et al. Intimate partner violence and adherence to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in African women in HIV serodiscordant relationships: a prospective cohort study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;73(3):313–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lopez EJ, Jones DL, Villar-Loubet OM, Arheart KL, Weiss SM. Violence, coping, and consistent medication adherence in HIV-positive couples. AIDS Educ Prev. 2010;22(1):61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trimble DD, Nava A, McFarlane J. Intimate partner violence and antiretroviral adherence among women receiving care in an urban southeastern Texas HIV clinic. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2013;24(4):331–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rose RC, House AS, Stepleman LM. Intimate partner violence and its effects on the health of African American HIV-positive women. Psychol Trauma. 2010;2(4):311–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hampanda KM. Intimate partner violence and HIV-positive women’s non-adherence to antiretroviral medication for the purpose of prevention of mother-to-child transmission in Lusaka, Zambia. Soc Sci Med. 2016;153:123–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rabin RF, Jennings JM, Campbell JC, Bair-Merritt MH. Intimate partner violence screening tools: A systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(5):439–445.e434.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Service UPH. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States2014 clinical practice guideline 2014.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6(1):3–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Straus MA, Hamby S, Warren W. The conflict tactics scales handbook: revised conflict tactics scale (CTS2) and CTS: parent-child version (CTSPC). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services; 2003.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Koss MP, Oros CJ. Sexual Experiences Survey: a research instrument investigating sexual aggression and victimization. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1982;50(3):455.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tolman RM. The validation of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory. Violence Vict. 1999;14(1):25–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hogben M, Waterman CK. Patterns of conflict resolution within relationships and coercive sexual behavior of men and women. Sex Roles. 2000;43(5–6):341–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rooney J, Hanson RK. Predicting attrition from treatment programs for abusive men. J Fam Violence. 2001;16(2):131–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krakower DS, Mimiaga MJ, Rosenberger JG, et al. Limited awareness and low immediate uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men using an internet social networking site. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(3):e33119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McCauley HL, Silverman JG, Jones KA, et al. Psychometric properties and refinement of the reproductive coercion scale. Contraception. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.09.010.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Institute S. Sas/stat user’s guide: Version 6. Vol 2: Sas Inst; 1990.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, et al. Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception. 2010;81(4):316–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Alexander KA, Volpe EM, Abboud S, Campbell JC. Reproductive coercion, sexual risk behaviours and mental health symptoms among young low-income behaviourally bisexual women: Implications for nursing practice. Nurs: J Clin; 2016.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Basile KC, et al. Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(4):E11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sareen J, Pagura J, Grant B. Is intimate partner violence associated with HIV infection among women in the United States? Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2009;31(3):274–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Townsend L, Jewkes R, Mathews C, et al. HIV risk behaviours and their relationship to intimate partner violence (IPV) among men who have multiple female sexual partners in Cape Town, South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(1):132–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jewkes R, Dunkle K, Nduna M, et al. Factors associated with HIV sero-status in young rural South African women: connections between intimate partner violence and HIV. Int J Epidemiol. 2006;35(6):1461–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Coker AL, Davis KE, Arias I, et al. Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(4):260–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Basile KC, Arias I, Desai S, Thompson MP. The differential association of intimate partner physical, sexual, psychological, and stalking violence and posttraumatic stress symptoms in a nationally representative sample of women. J Trauma Stress. 2004;17(5):413–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Basile KC, Hall JE. Intimate partner violence perpetration by court-ordered men: distinctions and intersections among physical violence, sexual violence, psychological abuse, and stalking. J Interpers Violence. 2011;26(2):230–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sullivan TP, McPartland TS, Armeli S, Jaquier V, Tennen H. Is it the exception or the rule? Daily co-occurrence of physical, sexual, and psychological partner violence in a 90-day study of substance-using, community women. Psychol Violence. 2012;2(2):154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Scott-Storey K. Cumulative abuse: do things add up? An evaluation of the conceptualization, operationalization, and methodological approaches in the study of the phenomenon of cumulative abuse. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2011;12(3):135–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bureau USC. Quick facts., 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public HealthYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Yale Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDSNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.Division of Global Public Health, Department of MedicineUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyClark UniversityWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations