How black heterosexual men's narratives about sexual partner type and condom use disrupt the main and casual partner dichotomy: 'we still get down, but we not together'.

Sexual partner types and partnership dynamics have important implications for condom use. Yet most HIV prevention research conceptualises condom use as individual-level rather than dyadic-level behaviour. Evidence of a generalised HIV epidemic in urban predominantly low-income US Black heterosexual communities highlights the need for a culturally and contextually-grounded understanding of partner types, partnership dynamics and condom use from the perspective of Black heterosexual men. We conducted individual interviews with 30 self-identified men between the ages of 18 and 44, 18 (60%) of whom reported at least two partner types in the last 6 months. Key findings include: (1) 'main and casual' partner types per the HIV prevention literature; (2) three casual-partner subtypes: primary, recurrent, and one-time casuals; (3) overlapping partnership dynamics between main partners, primary-casual partners and recurrent-casual partners, but not one-time casual partners; and (4) consistent condom use reported for one-time casual partners only. The study underscores the critical need for more condom promotion messages and interventions that reflect the dyadic and culturally-grounded realities of US Black heterosexual men's sexual partner types and partnership dynamics.

Researchers, patients, and other stakeholders' perspectives on challenges to and strategies for engagement.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in patient and stakeholder engagement in research, yet limited evidence about effective methods. Since 2012, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) has funded patient-centered comparative effectiveness research with a requirement for engaging patients and other stakeholders as research partners in study planning, conduct, and dissemination. This requirement, unique among large healthcare research funders in the US, provides an opportunity to learn about challenges encountered and specific strategies used by PCORI-funded study teams. The primary objective of this study is to describe -- from the perspective of PCORI investigators and research partners-the most common engagement challenges encountered in the first two years of the projects and promising strategies to prevent and overcome these challenges. METHODS: Descriptive information about investigators, partners, and their engagement was collected from investigators via annual (N = 235) and mid-year (N = 40) project progress reporting to PCORI, and from their partners (N = 260) via voluntary survey. Qualitative data were analyzed using content and thematic analyses. RESULTS: Investigators and partners most often described engagement challenges in three domains: (1) infrastructure to support engagement, (2) building relationships, and (3) maintaining relationships. Infrastructure challenges related to financial and human resources, including funding support and dedicated staff, identifying diverse groups of partners, and partners' logistical needs. Challenges for both building and maintaining relationships encompass a variety of aspects of authentic, positive interactions that facilitate mutual understanding, full participation, and genuine influence on the projects. Strategies to prevent or mitigate engagement challenges also corresponded overall to the same three domains. Both groups typically described strategies more generally, with applicability to a range of challenges rather than specific actions to address only particular challenges. CONCLUSION: Meaningful engagement of patients and other stakeholders comes with challenges, as does any innovation in the research process. The challenges and promising practices identified by these investigators and partners, related to engagement infrastructure and the building and maintenance of relationships, reveal actionable areas to improve engagement, including organizational policies and resources, training, new engagement models, and supporting engagement by viewing it as an investment in research uptake and impact.

What motivates patients and caregivers to engage in health research and how engagement affects their lives: Qualitative survey findings.

BACKGROUND: US research organizations increasingly are supporting patient and stakeholder engagement in health research with a goal of producing more useful, relevant and patient-centered evidence better aligned with real-world clinical needs. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) engages patients, family caregivers and other health-care stakeholders, including clinicians, payers and policymakers, as active partners in prioritizing, designing, conducting and disseminating research as a key strategy to produce useful evidence for health-care decision making. OBJECTIVE: To inform effective engagement practices and policies, we sought to understand what motivates patients and caregivers to engage as partners on PCORI-funded research projects and how such engagement changed their lives. METHODS: We conducted thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses from 255 patients, family caregivers and individuals from advocacy and community-based organizations who engaged as partners on 139 PCORI-funded research projects focusing on a range of health conditions. RESULTS: Partners' motivations for engaging in research were oriented primarily towards benefiting others, including a desire to improve patients' lives and to support effective health-care interventions. In addition to feeling they made a positive difference, many partners reported direct benefits from engagement, such as new relationships and improved health habits. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: By identifying patient and caregiver motivations for engaging in research partnerships and what they get out of the experience, our study may help research teams and organizations attract partners and foster more satisfying and sustainable partnerships. Our findings also add to evidence that engagement benefits the people involved as partners, strengthening the case for more widespread engagement.

Methods and impact of engagement in research, from theory to practice and back again: early findings from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

PURPOSE: Since 2012, PCORI has been funding patient-centered comparative effectiveness research with a requirement for engaging patients and other stakeholders in the research, a requirement that is unique among the US funders of clinical research. This paper presents PCORI's evaluation framework for assessing the short- and long-term impacts of engagement; describes engagement in PCORI projects (types of stakeholders engaged, when in the research process they are engaged and how they are engaged, contributions of their engagement); and identifies the effects of engagement on study design, processes, and outcomes selection, as reported by both PCORI-funded investigators and patient and other stakeholder research partners. METHODS: Detailed quantitative and qualitative information collected annually from investigators and their partners was analyzed via descriptive statistics and cross-sectional qualitative content and thematic analysis, and compared against the outcomes expected from the evaluation framework and its underlying conceptual model. RESULTS: The data support the role of engaged research partners in refinements to the research questions, selection of interventions to compare, choice of study outcomes and how they are measured, contributions to strategies for recruitment, and ensuring studies are patient-centered. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation framework and the underlying conceptual model are supported by results to date. PCORI will continue to assess the effects of engagement as the funded projects progress toward completion, dissemination, and uptake into clinical decision making.

Responsible men, blameworthy women: Black heterosexual men's discursive constructions of safer sex and masculinity.

OBJECTIVE: Although Black heterosexual men (BHM) in the United States rank among those most affected by HIV, research about how safer sex messages shape their safer sex behaviors is rare, highlighting the need for innovative qualitative methodologies such as critical discursive psychology (CDP). This CDP study examined how: (a) BHM construct safer sex and masculinity; (b) BHM positioned themselves in relation to conventional masculinity; and (c) discursive context (individual interview vs. focus group) shaped talk about safer sex and masculinity. METHOD: Data included individual interviews (n = 30) and 4 focus groups (n = 26) conducted with 56 self-identified Black/African American heterosexual men, ages 18 to 44. RESULTS: Analyses highlighted 5 main constructions: (a) condoms as signifiers of "safe" women; (b) blaming women for STI/responsibility for safer sex; (c) relationship/trust/knowledge; (d) condom mandates; and (e) public health safer sex. Discourses positioned BHM in terms of conventional masculinity when talk denied men's agency for safer sex and/or contraception, or positioned women as deceitful, or apathetic about sexual risk and/or pregnancy. Notably, discourses also spotlighted alternative masculinities relevant to taking responsibility for safer sex or sexual exclusivity. Discursive context, namely the homosocial nature of focus group discussions, shaped how participants conversed about safer sex, and masculinity but not the content of that talk. CONCLUSION: In denying BHM's responsibility for safer sex, BHM's discourses about safer sex and masculinity often mirror public health messages, underscoring a critical need to sync these discourses to reduce sexual risk, and develop gender-transformative safer sex interventions for BHM.

Using intervention mapping as a participatory strategy: development of a cervical cancer screening intervention for Hispanic women.

Cervical cancer is preventable with treatment of precancerous lesions and treatable at early stages. Hispanics have higher rates of cervical cancer and lower rates of screening. Ayudando a las Mujeres con Informacción, Guía, y Amor para su Salud (AMIGAS) is an intervention to increase cervical cancer screening in U.S. women of Mexican origin. AMIGAS was developed with the participation of the community using intervention mapping (IM). Following the IM process, the authors completed a needs assessment, development of program objectives, selection of intervention methods and strategies, and program design. A benefit of IM is its linkage with community-based participatory research as it includes engagement of community members to identify and refine priority areas. The success of this strategy suggests it a useful tool for other populations. The resulting intervention program is currently being tested for efficacy and cost-effectiveness in three sites: El Paso, Texas; Houston, Texas; and Yakima, Washington.

Acción Mutua (Shared Action): a multipronged approach to delivering capacity-building assistance to agencies serving Latino communities in the United States.

Culturally appropriate, theory-based capacity-building assistance can serve a vital role in helping HIV prevention providers remain up-to-date, effective, and responsive to those they serve. Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), AIDS Project Los Angeles, in collaboration with San Francisco State University's César E. Chávez Institute, conducted full-day site visits and qualitative interviews in 2005 with mid-level management staff of CDC-funded community-based organizations delivering HIV prevention services to Latino communities in the western region of the United States. We found that agencies we visited (1) had not yet adapted the evidence-based interventions they were using at the time of our visit and (2) requested technical assistance and training in the areas of program development, evaluation, group facilitation techniques, consumer recruitment, client retention, intervention adaptation, and materials development. Findings from this needs assessment were used to inform our seven-pronged approach to delivering capacity-building assistance entitled "Acción Mutua" (Shared Action). The approach emphasizes strategic partnerships, stakeholder involvement, organizational self-assessment, culturally appropriate materials development, interactive training, tailored onsite technical assistance, and professional networking opportunities. This article describes our approach in detail, the assessment process we used to develop it, and its implications for capacity-building practice.

Reasons for stimulant use among Latino gay men in San Francisco: a comparison between methamphetamine and cocaine users.

The literature on drug-using gay men has documented a strong relationship between methamphetamine (MA) use and high-risk sexual practices. Of particular concern is that MA use is associated with powerful sexual effects that may facilitate the transmission of HIV. As a group, Latino gay men show high risk for HIV infection, and such risk has been related to episodes of sex under the influence of drugs. However, little information exists about stimulant use among Latino gay men, and it is not known whether MA use in this population is similarly motivated by sexual effects. This study reports reasons for stimulant use in a sample of 300 Latino gay men randomly selected from social and sexual venues; only men who reported stimulant use in the last 6 months were included in the study. Of stimulant users, 51% (n=153) reported MA, 44% (n=133) reported cocaine, and 5% (n=14) reported crack as their "most frequently used stimulant" (MFS); reasons for use were assessed for the participant's specific MFS. Reasons for stimulant use clustered by five main factors, including energy, sexual enhancement, social connection, coping with stressors, and focused work productivity. MA users gave reasons more frequently related to sexual enhancement (to have better sex, more sex, and more anal sex) whereas cocaine users gave reasons more often related to social connections (to be more sociable and to fit in with other gay men). These findings suggest that Latino gay men use stimulants for reasons that are important in their social, emotional, work, and sexual lives. Like non-Latino Whites, Latino gay men were found to rely on MA for reasons related to sexual enhancement, possibly to meet cultural expectations and norms of sexual prowess and sexual success in the gay community.

Cervical cancer screening beliefs among young Hispanic women.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined beliefs, attitudes, and personal characteristics that correlated with self-reported cervical cancer screening history among Hispanic women aged 18 to 25 years old in El Paso, TX, a large metropolitan area on the U.S.-Mexico border. METHODS: Data were collected through a cross-sectional, face-to-face survey. The study questionnaire was based primarily on the Health Belief Model, and included scales that measured perceived susceptibility and seriousness of cervical cancer, and perceived benefits and barriers to Pap test screening. The study questionnaire also included measures of acculturation, Pap test history, pregnancy and sexual history, use of birth control, type of medical insurance, and educational attainment. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent reported ever having had a Pap test and 56% reported having had a test in the past year. Eighty percent reported that they were sexually active, and of these, 63% reported using birth control. Respondents understood the seriousness of cervical cancer, their susceptibility to cervical cancer, and the benefits of Pap testing; however, only 61% agreed that most young women whom they know have Pap tests. Greater acculturation and the belief that most young unmarried women have Pap tests were positively associated with ever having screening. The perception that the test would be painful and not knowing where to go for the test were negatively associated with ever having a Pap test. CONCLUSIONS: This study found suboptimal rates of screening for cervical cancer in a sample of young Hispanic women residing along the U.S.-Mexico border. Although women may understand the seriousness of cervical cancer and the benefits of screening, perceptions about Pap tests may pose barriers to undergoing screening. Efforts to increase screening also may need to focus specifically on women who are least acculturated, as they also were least likely to have had prior Pap tests.