Importance of relationship context in HIV transmission: results from a qualitative case-control study in Rakai, Uganda.

We present results from life history interviews with 60 young adults from southern Uganda. Using a novel qualitative case-control design, we compared newly HIV-positive cases with HIV-negative controls matched on age, gender, marital status, and place of residence. Relationship context was the most salient theme differentiating cases from controls. Compared with HIV-negative respondents, recent seroconverters described relationships marked by poorer communication, greater suspicion and mistrust, and larger and more transitory sexual networks. Results highlight the importance of dyadic approaches to HIV and possibly of couple-based interventions. Using HIV-matched pairs allowed additional understanding of the factors influencing transmission. This hybrid methodological approach holds promise for future studies of sexual health.

Contextual barriers and motivators to adult male medical circumcision in Rakai, Uganda.

Medical male circumcision (MMC) is a central component of HIV prevention. In this study we examined barriers to and facilitators of MMC in Rakai, Uganda. Interviews and focus groups with MMC acceptors, decliners, and community members were collected and analyzed iteratively. Themes were developed based on immersion, repeated reading, sorting, and coding of data using grounded theory. Pain, medical complications, infertility, lack of empirical efficacy, waiting time before resumption of sex, and religion were identified as obstacles to MMC acceptance. Prevention and healing of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), access to HIV and other ancillary care, penile hygiene, and peer influence were key motivators. Voluntary counseling and testing for HIV, partner influence, and sexual potency were both barriers and motivators. Individual and societal factors, such as pain and religion, might slow MMC scale up. Health benefits, such as HIV/STI prevention and penile hygiene, are essential in motivating men to accept MMC.

"Men are always scared to test with their partners it is like taking them to the Police": Motivations for and barriers to couples' HIV counselling and testing in Rakai, Uganda: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Uptake of couples' HIV counselling and testing (couples' HCT) can positively influence sexual risk behaviours and improve linkage to HIV care among HIV-positive couples. However, less than 30% of married couples have ever tested for HIV together with their partners. We explored the motivations for and barriers to couples' HCT among married couples in Rakai, Uganda. METHODS: This was a qualitative study conducted among married individuals and selected key informants between August and October 2013. Married individuals were categorized by prior HCT status as: 1) both partners never tested; 2) only one or both partners ever tested separately; and 3) both partners ever tested together. Data were collected on the motivations for and barriers to couples' HCT, decision-making processes from tested couples and suggestions for improving couples' HCT uptake. Eighteen focus group discussions with married individuals, nine key informant interviews with selected key informants and six in-depth interviews with married individuals that had ever tested together were conducted. All interviews were audio-recorded, translated and transcribed verbatim and analyzed using Nvivo (version 9), following a thematic framework approach. RESULTS: Motivations for couples' HCT included the need to know each other's HIV status, to get a treatment companion or seek HIV treatment together - if one or both partners were HIV-positive - and to reduce mistrust between partners. Barriers to couples' HCT included fears of the negative consequences associated with couples' HCT (e.g. fear of marital dissolution), mistrust between partners and conflicting work schedules. Couples' HCT was negotiated through a process that started off with one of the partners testing alone initially and then convincing the other partner to test together. Suggestions for improving couples' HCT uptake included the need for couple- and male-partner-specific sensitization, and the use of testimonies from tested couples. CONCLUSIONS: Couples' HCT is largely driven by individual and relationship-based factors while fear of the negative consequences associated with couples' HCT appears to be the main barrier to couples' HCT uptake in this setting. Interventions to increase the uptake of couples' HCT should build on the motivations for couples' HCT while dealing with the negative consequences associated with couples' HCT.