A pilot test of a treatment to address intersectional stigma, mental health, and HIV risk among gay and bisexual men of color.

We tested the feasibility and acceptability of a group therapy treatment that addresses the intersecting stigma-related stressors theorized to drive elevated mental health risk, sexual health risk, and their co-occurrence among Black and Latino gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM). First, we modified an existing 10-week, one-on-one, cognitive-behavioral treatment addressing co-occurring health risks among GBM to develop a group-based, intersectionally informed treatment for GBM of color. Then, an open pilot was conducted (n = 21, across two cohorts) with young Black and Latino GBM. An evaluation of feasibility metrics (e.g., eligibility-enrollment ratio, session attendance, rate of retention) supported overall treatment feasibility. Qualitative data suggest high acceptability of the treatment length, format, and content-and revealed a powerful theme: The treatment and group composition led participants to feel less alone as GBM of color. To further evaluate acceptability, baseline and 3-month posttreatment assessments and exit interviews were used to examine the treatment's impact on stigma coping, mental health, and sexual health. Expected changes were found for: (a) stigma coping, as demonstrated by decreases in perceived sexual minority stress, racial minority stress, and intersectional stress; (b) mental health, including depression, anxiety, stress, and suicidality, but not alcohol use; and (c) sexual health, including condom use efficacy, sexual compulsivity, and preexposure prophylaxis uptake; with partial support for decreased in human immunodeficiency virus; HIV-transmission risk acts. This study lays the groundwork for a group treatment to address intersectional stigma, mental health, and HIV risk among young Black and Latino GBM in the U.S. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Kidney transplantation and HIV: does recipient privacy outweigh the donor's right to information?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There exists an inherent conflict between a kidney donor's right to know key aspects of a recipient's medical history and specific disease, such as HIV, where federal and state statues protect this information. The authors of the live organ donor consensus group expressly stated the principal of a donor's right to recipient information. This information includes the risks and benefits of not only the donation procedure, but also the risks, benefits, and alternative treatment options of the recipient. In this paper, a case will be presented highlighting this conflict and the ethical and legal reasoning used to resolve it. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A 22-year-old woman came forward as a directed kidney donor for an HIV-positive individual. The donor and recipient were medically appropriate for kidney donation and transplantation. During the donor advocacy panel review, there was disagreement regarding whether or not the potential donor had the right to know about the HIV status of the potential recipient. RESULTS: In living kidney transplantation to HIV-positive individuals, the recipient's right to privacy of information outweighs the donor's right to know. CONCLUSIONS: Although protecting the recipient's right to privacy is paramount, the donor is still entitled to consider factors a priori that could alter their decision to donate. This can be accomplished by informing the donor that they are not entitled to protected health information of the recipient and that their decision to donate should be based on knowing the recipient is medically appropriate for kidney transplantation.

Physician specialization and women's primary care services in an urban HIV clinic.

To compare adherence to published primary care guidelines by general internal medicine and infectious diseases (ID) specialist physicians treating HIV-positive women we conducted a retrospective patient record review of 148 female HIV-positive patients seen at the Nathan Smith Clinic in New Haven, Connecticut, in 2001 and 2002. Four quality measures were defined to evaluate physician practices: annual cervical cancer screening, influenza vaccination and hyperlipidemia screening, and biennial mammography. Main outcome was the frequency of meeting each measure by generalist and ID-specialist physicians, and the two physician types were compared after controlling for patient clustering, age, and CD4 cell count. Among all measures, the rates of cervical cancer screening in 2001 were lowest among generalists (55%) and ID-specialists (47%) but not significantly different (odds ratio [OR] 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78 to 1.90), and the rates of hyperlipidemia screening in 2002 were highest for both generalists (98%) and ID-specialists (93%), but again not significant (OR 2.86, CI 0.30 to 27.6). No statistically significant differences were found between physician types for any quality measure, nor were significant differences found in the CD4 cell counts of patients of each physician type who received each service. Our results show potential for improvements in care among both generalist and ID-specialist physicians treating HIV-positive women.