Gender and Sexual Orientation Differences in Sexual Violence Knowledge, Prevention Behaviors, and Care-Seeking Behaviors.

Sexual violence (SV) on college campuses disproportionately affects cisgender (nontransgender) women, sexual minorities (e.g., gays/lesbians, bisexuals), and gender minority (e.g., transgender/nonbinary) people. This study investigates gender and sexual behavior differences in common SV intervention targets-SV-related knowledge, prevention behaviors, and care-seeking. We analyzed cross-sectional survey data, collected in 9/2015-3/2017, from 2202 students aged 18-24 years attending college health and counseling centers at 28 Pennsylvania and West Virginia campuses. Multivariable multilevel models tested gender and sexual behavior differences in SV history; recognition of SV; prevention behaviors (self-efficacy to obtain sexual consent, intentions to intervene, positive bystander behaviors); and care-seeking behaviors (knowledge of, self-efficacy to use, and actual use of SV services). Adjusting for lifetime exposure to SV, compared with cisgender men, cisgender women had higher recognition of SV and reproductive coercion, prevention behaviors, and care-seeking self-efficacy (beta range 0.19-1.36) and gender minority people had higher recognition of SV and intentions to intervene (beta range 0.33-0.61). Cisgender men with any same-gender sexual partners had higher SV knowledge (beta = 0.23) and self-efficacy to use SV services (beta = 0.52) than cisgender men with only opposite-gender partners. SV history did not explain these differences. Populations most vulnerable to SV generally have higher SV knowledge, prevention behaviors, and care-seeking behaviors than cisgender men with only opposite-gender sexual partners. Innovative SV intervention approaches are necessary to increase SV-related knowledge among heterosexual cisgender men and may need to target alternative mechanisms to effectively reduce inequities for sexual and gender minority people.

What Explains Inequalities in Telehealth Utilization Among North Carolina Medicaid Beneficiaries?

Background: Increased availability of telehealth can improve access to health care. However, there is evidence of persistent disparities in telehealth usage, as well as among people from minoritized racial and ethnic groups and rural residents. The objective of our work was to explore the degree to which disparities in telehealth use for behavioral health (BH) and musculoskeletal (MSK) related services during the COVID-19 pandemic are explained by observed beneficiary- and area-level characteristics. Methods: Using North Carolina Medicaid claims data of Medicaid beneficiaries with BH or MSK conditions, we apply nonlinear regression-based decomposition analysis-based models developed by Kitagawa, Oaxaca, and Blinder to determine which observed variables are associated with racial, ethnic, and rural inequalities in telehealth usage. Results: In the BH cohort, we found statistically significant differences in telehealth usage by race in the adult population, and by race, Hispanic ethnicity, and rurality in the pediatric population. In the MSK cohort, we found significant inequities by Hispanic ethnicity and rurality among adults, and by race and rurality among children. Inequalities in telehealth use between groups were small, ranging from 0.7 percentage points between urban and rural adults with MSK conditions to 3.8 percentage points between white adults and people of color among those with BH conditions. Overall, we found that racial and ethnic inequalities in telehealth use are not well explained by the observed variables in our data. Rural disparities in telehealth use are better explained by observed variables, particularly area-level broadband internet use. Conclusions: For inequalities between rural and urban residents, our analysis provides observational evidence that infrastructure such as broadband internet access is an important driver of differences in telehealth use. For racial and ethnic inequalities, the pathways may be more complex and difficult to measure, particularly when relying on administrative data sources in place of more detailed data on individual-level socioeconomic factors.

Nurse-Led Strategy to Improve Blood Pressure and Cholesterol Level Among People With HIV: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Despite higher atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, people with HIV (PWH) experience unique barriers to ASCVD prevention, such as changing models of HIV primary care. Objective: To test whether a multicomponent nurse-led strategy would improve systolic blood pressure (SBP) and non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level in a diverse population of PWH receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART). Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled PWH at 3 academic HIV clinics in the US from September 2019 to January 2022 and conducted follow-up for 12 months until January 2023. Included patients were 18 years or older and had a confirmed HIV diagnosis, an HIV-1 viral load less than 200 copies/mL, and both hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. Participants were stratified by trial site and randomized 1:1 to either the multicomponent EXTRA-CVD (A Nurse-Led Intervention to Extend the HIV Treatment Cascade for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention) intervention group or the control group. Primary analyses were conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Intervention: The EXTRA-CVD group received home BP monitoring guidance and BP and cholesterol management from a dedicated prevention nurse at 4 in-person visits (baseline and 4, 8, and 12 months) and frequent telephone check-ins up to every 2 weeks as needed. The control group received general prevention education sessions from the prevention nurse at each of the 4 in-person visits. Main Outcomes and Measures: Study-measured SBP was the primary outcome, and non-HDL cholesterol level was the secondary outcome. Measurements were taken over 12 months and assessed by linear mixed models. Prespecified moderators tested were sex at birth, baseline ASCVD risk, and trial site. Results: A total of 297 PWH were randomized to the EXTRA-CVD arm (n = 149) or control arm (n = 148). Participants had a median (IQR) age of 59.0 (53.0-65.0) years and included 234 males (78.8%). Baseline mean (SD) SBP was 135.0 (18.8) mm Hg and non-HDL cholesterol level was 139.9 (44.6) mg/dL. At 12 months, participants in the EXTRA-CVD arm had a clinically significant 4.2-mm Hg (95% CI, 0.3-8.2 mm Hg; P = .04) lower SBP and 16.9-mg/dL (95% CI, 8.6-25.2 mg/dL; P < .001) lower non-HDL cholesterol level compared with participants in the control arm. There was a clinically meaningful but not statistically significant difference in SBP effect in females compared with males (11.8-mm Hg greater difference at 4 months, 9.6 mm Hg at 8 months, and 5.9 mm Hg at 12 months; overall joint test P = .06). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this trial indicate that the EXTRA-CVD strategy effectively reduced BP and cholesterol level over 12 months and should inform future implementation of multifaceted ASCVD prevention programs for PWH. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03643705.

Cost Analysis of Community-Based Violence Prevention Programs: Manhood 2.0 and Job Skills Programs.

Purpose: Sexual violence (SV) and adolescent relationship abuse (ARA) are common in the U. S. and have strong associations with negative health and wellbeing outcomes. Manhood 2.0 is the first U.S. program designed for community settings to build bystander skills while also challenging harmful gender norms. A cluster-randomized trial comparing Manhood 2.0 to Job Skills, a job readiness training control condition, demonstrated that it is a promising strategy to prevent sexual violence and adolescent relationship abuse. Such community-based interventions may be particularly relevant in lower resource urban settings, and the costs of such prevention programs have not been considered previously. Methods: The aim of the present study is to perform systematic and standardized cost calculations associated with implementing Manhood 2.0 among adolescent males. In addition, this study provides detailed cost information of the community-based intervention program, as well as costs associated with implementing the Job Skills control program. Program implementation data were recorded throughout the study period (2015-2019) by the Manhood 2.0 study team. Results: The cost of implementing Manhood 2.0 is $4,771 per complete round of program delivery and $451 per participant, which is approximately the same cost as the control Job Skills program ($4,432 and $453 per participant). The marginal cost per additional round of Manhood 2.0 program is $3,682. Conclusion: Implementation of a community-based program requires substantial resources and collaborations with community partners especially in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. This study provides a snapshot of the cost information of a community-based intervention program from the implementing agency's perspective, which is essential in helping decision-makers understand the costs they will incur by implementing prevention programs and ensuring program feasibility and sustainability.