Both/And: Mixed methods analysis of network composition, communication patterns, and socio-economic support within social networks of transgender women involved in sex work in Lima, Peru.

INTRODUCTION: Social networks contribute to normative reinforcement of HIV prevention strategies, knowledge sharing, and social capital, but little research has characterized the social networks of transgender women (TW) in Latin America. We conducted a mixed methods analysis of three network clusters of TW in Lima, Peru, to evaluate network composition, types of support exchanged, and patterns of communication. METHODS: We recruited TW residing in or affiliated with three "casas trans" (houses shared among TW) in Lima between April-May 2018. Eligible participants were 18 or older, self-reported HIV-negative, and reported recent intercourse with a cis-male partner. Participants completed demographic questionnaires, social network interviews, and semi-structured interviews to assess egocentric network structures, support exchanged, and communication patterns. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed using Stata v14.1 and Atlas.ti, respectively. RESULTS: Of 20 TW, median age was 26 years and 100% reported involvement in commercial sex work. Respondents identified 161 individuals they interacted with in the past month (alters), of whom 33% were TW and 52% family members. 70% of respondents reported receiving emotional support from family, while 30% received financial support and instrumental support from family. Of the 13 (65%) respondents who nominated someone as a source of HIV prevention support (HPS), the majority (69%) nominated other TW. In a GEE regression analysis adjusted for respondent education and region of birth, being a family member was associated with lower likelihood of providing financial support (aOR 0.21, CI 0.08-0.54), instrumental support (aOR 0.16, CI 0.06-0.39), and HPS (aOR 0.18, CI 0.05-0.64). In qualitative interviews, most respondents identified a cis-female family member as their most trusted and closest network member, but other TW were more often considered sources of day-to-day support, including HPS. CONCLUSION: TW have diverse social networks where other TW are key sources of knowledge sharing and support, and family members may also represent important and influential components. Within these complex networks, TW may selectively solicit and provide support from different network alters according to specific contexts and needs. HIV prevention messaging could consider incorporating network-based interventions with TW community input and outreach efforts for supportive family members.

Both/And: Mixed methods analysis of network composition, communication patterns, and socio-economic support within social networks of transgender women in Lima, Peru.

Introduction: Social networks contribute to normative reinforcement of HIV prevention strategies, knowledge sharing, and social capital, but little research has characterized the social networks of transgender women (TW) in Latin America. We conducted a mixed methods analysis of three network clusters of TW in Lima, Peru, to evaluate network composition, types of support exchanged, and patterns of communication. Methods: We recruited TW residing in or affiliated with three "casas trans" (houses shared among TW) in Lima between April-May 2018. Eligible participants were 18 or older, self-reported HIV-negative, and reported recent intercourse with a cis-male partner. Participants completed demographic questionnaires, social network interviews, and semi-structured interviews to assess egocentric network structures, support exchanged, and communication patterns. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed using Stata v14.1 and Atlas.ti, respectively. Results: Of 20 TW, median age was 26 years and 100% reported involvement in commercial sex work. Respondents identified 161 individuals they interacted with in the past month (alters), of whom 33% were TW and 52% family members. 70% of respondents reported receiving emotional support from family, while 30% received financial support and instrumental support from family. Of the 13 (65%) respondents who nominated someone as a source of HIV prevention support (HPS), the majority (69%) nominated other TW. In a GEE regression analysis adjusted for respondent education and region of birth, being a family member was associated with lower likelihood of providing financial support (aOR 0.21, CI 0.08-0.54), instrumental support (aOR 0.16, CI 0.06-0.39), and HPS (aOR 0.18, CI 0.05-0.64). In qualitative interviews, most respondents identified a cis-female family member as their most trusted and closest network member, but other TW were more often considered sources of day-to-day support, including HPS. Conclusion: TW have diverse social networks where other TW are key sources of knowledge sharing and support, and family members may also represent important and influential components. Within these complex networks, TW may selectively solicit and provide support from different network alters according to specific contexts and needs. HIV prevention messaging could consider incorporating network-based interventions with TW community input and outreach efforts for supportive family members.