561 
Implementation and Evaluation of a Clinic-based Behavioral Intervention: Positive STEPS for HIV Patients
Lytt Gardner*1, G Marks1, C O'Daniels2, T Wilson3, E Quinlivan4, J Wright5, L Bradley-Springer6, M Thompson7, S Raffanti8, and M Thrun9
1CDC, Atlanta, GA, US; 2McKing Consulting Corp, Atlanta, GA, US; 3State Univ of NewYork at Brooklyn, US; 4Univ of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, US; 5Univ of Missouri, Kansas City, US; 6Univ of Colorado Hlth Sci Ctr, Denver, US; 7AIDS Res Consortium of Atlanta, GA, US; 8Vanderbilt Univ, Nashville, TN, US; and 9Denver Publ Hlth, CO, US
Background: In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) published guidelines for conducting behavioral interventions
in HIV care settings. Following these recommendations, we evaluated a risk-reduction
intervention delivered by medical providers at 7 sites to test the feasibility
of wide-scale implementation.
Methods: Medical providers at 7 HIV clinics in New York, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Missouri, and Colorado delivered a
standardized safer sex and drug-use intervention that screened patients for
behavioral risks, gave targeted counseling, and delivered prevention messages
at all routine patient visits. The intervention was evaluated with a longitudinal
cohort of 767 patients who received the intervention (no control group), completed
a baseline questionnaire and 2 follow-up questionnaires at 6 and 12 months.
Logistic regression with GEE methods was used in statistical analyses.
Results: The 3-month prevalence of unprotected anal
or vaginal intercourse with any partners declined significantly (p <0.001)
from baseline (42%) to follow-up at 6 months (26%) and 12 months (23%). The
decline was significant with all serostatus partners, whether HIV–/unknown
serostatus or HIV+. The percentage reductions in unprotected anal or
vaginal intercourse between baseline and 6 months showed a dose-response
relationship with patient self-reports of receiving safer-sex counseling: 45%
if counseling at all clinic visits, 35% if counseling at some clinic visits,
and 19% if counseling at no clinic visits. These findings were confirmed in
multivariate models that controlled for demographic factors and HIV clinical
status of participants.
Conclusions: Despite receiving only brief training,
HIV medical providers in 6 states successfully
conducted an HIV prevention intervention with their clinic patients. We
observed significant declines in unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse among men
who have sex with men (MSM), heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. Our
findings constitute a test of the feasibility of wide-scale implementation of
the type of safer sex and drug-use intervention that was conducted in 2 U.S. behavioral intervention trials (Options project in Connecticut, and Partnership for Health in California). HIV care clinics are an efficient context for delivery of prevention messages
because of the repeated routine contacts between patients and their care
provider. Clinics that serve HIV patients should incorporate such programs as
standard of care in treating those patients.
|