Egocentric network data provide additional information for characterizing an individual's HIV risk profile.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the hypothesis that partner-specific characteristics are important to improve an individual's risk characterization. DESIGN: It has been shown that the egocentric network structure is important to establish a person's risk for infection. METHODS: The study was cross-sectional in its design and enrolled 1231 volunteers at one HIV testing site in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and applied an adapted ego-network questionnaire. Each individual was interviewed about their own risk factors and those related to up to 10 sex partners. We used the dyadic data analysis method in which each relationship forms a record. Two receiver operator characteristic curves were generated, and the ability to correctly predict volunteers' HIV serostatus based on a model with characteristics of volunteers and sex partners and another with only volunteers' characteristics was evaluated. RESULTS: Partner-related variables were associated with HIV serostatus both for men and women. The model with volunteer/sex partners' characteristics performed better in discriminating between HIV-positive and negative volunteers only for men but not for women. The c statistic for men volunteers was 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.87] for the volunteer alone model and 0.88 (95% CI 0.86-0.91) for the combined model (P = 0.03). The values for women were 0.75 (95% CI 0.65-0.86) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.85), respectively (P = 0.71). CONCLUSION: Ego-network theory-based approaches provide additional information for characterizing risk for HIV infection among men.

The use of supplementary techniques to increase recall of sex partners in a network-based research study in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate supplementary cueing as a technique to increase recall of sex partners in the year before the interview. GOAL: Recall of partners beyond those freely recalled. STUDY DESIGN: We asked volunteers at a clinic in Brazil to freely recall all regular and casual sex partners in the year before the interview. Then, we used a name generator developed by Brewer et al. in the United States, in which volunteers were prompted with 4 types of cues: location, alphabetic, social role, and network. We calculated different measures to evaluate the technique and analyzed the associations between reporting any additional partner and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among volunteers reporting 2 or more sexual partners (n = 590), 41 (7%) recalled 1 or more additional partners by using the supplementary technique, with 105 partners of 2090 (5%) recalled only after using the cues. For volunteers reporting 4 or more sexual partners (n = 193), 34 (18%) recalled 1 or more additional partners by using the supplementary technique, and 98 of 1177 (8%) of their sexual partners were recalled after using the cues. Men were less likely than women to report sex partners after prompting with the social role cues (OR 0.09), and overall the combined techniques were slightly less effective for older individuals (OR 0.95). CONCLUSION: The cue technique can improve sexual partners' recall in cultural contexts different than the United States, mainly for individuals already reporting several partners before the cue.