Psychometric evaluation of the Condom Barriers and Motivations Scale (CBMS)
The Condom Barriers and Motivations Scale (CBMS) was developed to measure four distinct categories of barriers and motives to condom use, including: risk reduction motivations, pleasure reduction barriers, intimacy interference barriers, and partner pressure barriers. The CBMS is a 16-item scale with four items that correspond to each of these subscales. The CBMS was tested in two samples of gay and bisexual men. Results support the reliability and validity of the scale and its structure. Results also indicate that CBMS subscales are distinct from general measures of sexual wellbeing, personality factors, or relationship quality (i.e., discriminant validity) and are associated with self-reported condom use with different partner types (i.e., construct validity). The CBMS can be helpful in better understanding the dynamics of condom use in the context of pre-exposure prophylaxis decision-making, and can shed light on innovative approaches to enhance condom use as part of comprehensive HIV prevention and sexual health goals.
KeywordsCondoms HIV prevention Measurement Scale
The authors gratefully acknowledge the hard work of members of the Hunter HIV/AIDS Research Team (HART), including Anthony Surace, Kailip Boonrai, Corina Lelutiu-Weinberger, Inna Saboshchuk, and Louisa Thompson. We also thank Dr. Jeffrey Parsons and the staff at the Center for HIV Educational Studies and Training. We are grateful to the participants who gave their time and energy to this study, and to Dr. Willo Pequegnat and Dr. Michael Stirratt for their support.
This project was funded by R01MH095565 and R01AA022067 (S.A. Golub, PI) from the National Institutes of Mental Health and Kristi Gamarel was supported by Grant U24AA022000 (D. Operario, PI) from the National Institutes of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
As part of an NIH-funded PrEP Demonstration Project (R01AA022067), Sarit Golub receives study drug and partial support for DBS testing from Gilead Sciences. Kristi Gamarel declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights and Informed consent
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Bauermeister, J. A., Carballo-Diéguez, A., Ventuneac, A., & Dolezal, C. (2009). Assessing motivations to engage in intentional condomless anal intercourse in HIV-risk contexts (“bareback sex”) among men who have sex with men. AIDS Education and Prevention, 21, 156.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Burlew, A., Wilson, J., Montgomery, L., Peteet, B., Johnson, C., & Hatch-Maillette, M. (2015). Do masculinity and perceived condom barriers predict heterosexual HIV risk behaviors among black substance abusing men? Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice, 7, 4.Google Scholar
- Campbell, A. N., Brooks, A. J., Pavlicova, M., Hu, M. C., Hatch-Maillette, M. A., Calsyn, D. A., et al. (2016). Barriers to condom use: Results for men and women enrolled in HIV risk reduction trials in outpatient drug treatment. Journal of HIV/AIDS and Social Services, 15, 130–146.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- CDC. (2014). Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States-2014 clinical practice guideline. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease and Control.Google Scholar
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2015). HIV Surveillance Report, 2013 (Vol. 25). http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/surveillance/. Accessed 10 Aug 2016.
- Crosby, R., Graham, C. A., Yarber, W. L., Sanders, S. A., Milhausen, R., & Mena, L. (2016). Measures of attitudes toward communication about condom use: Their relationships with sexual risk behavior among young black men who have sex with men. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 43, 94–98.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- DuBois, L. Z., Macapagal, K. R., Rivera, Z., Prescott, T. L., Ybarra, M. L., & Mustankis, B. (2015). To have sex or not to have sex? An online focus group study of sexual decision making among experienced and inexperienced gay and bisexual adolescents. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 2027–2040.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Eaton, L. A., Driffin, D. D., Bauermeister, J., Smith, H., & Conway-Washington, C. (2015). Minimal awareness and stalled uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among risk, HIV-negative, Black men who have sex with men. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 29, 423–429.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goedel, W. C., Halkitis, P. N., Greene, R. E., & Duncan, D. T. (2016). Correlates of awareness of and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men who use geosocial-networking smartphone applications in New York City. AIDS and Behavior, 20, 1435–1442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Harawa, N. T., Williams, J. K., Ramamurthi, H. C., & Bingham, T. (2006). Perceptions towards condom use, sexual activity, and HIV disclosure among HIV-positive African American men who have sex with men: Implications for heterosexual transmission. Journal of Urban Health, 83, 682–694.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Liu, A. Y., Cohen, S. E., Vittinghoff, E., et al. (2015). Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection integrated with municipal- and community-based sexual health services. Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, 176, 75–84.Google Scholar
- Mayer, K. H., & Krakower, D. S. (2015). If PrEP decreases HIV transmission, what is impeding its uptake? Clinical Infectious Disease. http://www.natap.org/2015/HIV/ClinInfectDis2015-Mayer-cid_civ665.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2016.
- Reece, M., Herbenick, D., Hollub, A. V., et al. (2010). A psychometric assessment of the Multi-Factor Attitude Toward Condom Scale (MFACS). International Journal of STD and AIDS, 22, 119–129.Google Scholar
- Schumacker, E. S., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). Structural equation modeling. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
- Scott, H. M., & Klausner, J. D. (2016). Sexually transmitted infections and pre-exposure prophylaxis: Challenges and opportunities among men who have sex with men in the US. AIDS Research and Therapy, 13. doi: 10.1186/s12981-016-0089-8.
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
- Yu, C. Y., & Muthen, B. (2002). Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes (Technical Report). Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies.Google Scholar