Intervention Description
Intervention Package Information
Evaluation Study and Results
References and Contact Information

Intervention Description

Target Population
Recently incarcerated, HIV-negative women at risk for HIV

Goals of Intervention

• Reduce HIV sex risk behavior
• Reduce HIV injection risk behavior
• Reduce intimate partner violence (IPV) risk
• Establish or improve life stability issues (food, housing, education, employment, legal services)

Theoretic Basis

• Transtheoretical Model of Change
• Motivational Interviewing principles

Intervention Duration
Up to 12 sessions, 30-45 minutes each, delivered over 3 consecutive months.

Intervention Settings
Not reported

Deliverer
Community health specialists with the County Health Department and trained in Motivation Enhancement

Delivery Methods

• Counseling
• Discussion
• Risk reduction plan
• Risk reduction supplies

Go to top

Intervention Package Information

An intervention package is not available at this time. Please contact Brian W. Weir, MPH , Department of Health, Behavior & Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, email: bweir@jhsph.edu for details on intervention materials.

Go to top

Evaluation Study and Results

The original evaluation was conducted in Portland, Oregon, between 2001 and 2005.

Key Intervention Effects

• Reduced unprotected sexual intercourse

Study Sample
The baseline study sample of 530 women is characterized by the following:

• 54% White, 18% African American, 15% Multiracial/Other, 6% Native American/American Indian, 6% Hispanic
• 100% Female
• Mean age of 36 years, range:18-62 years
• 73% completed high school education or more

Recruitment Settings
Jail, home, and public area/community

Eligibility Criteria
Women were eligible if they were at least 18 years of age, incarcerated in the past year or currently on parole or probation, engaged in HIV risk behavior in the past year (i.e. injection drug use, crack use, intercourse with a male injection drug user, sex exchange, or sex with 10 or more partners), not diagnosed with HIV infection, not homeless for 3 or more months at the time of screening, and not at high risk of future homelessness.

Assignment Method
Women (N = 530) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: HIV Risk Reduction intervention (n = 177), HIV & Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Risk Reduction intervention (n =178), or control group (n = 175).

Comparison Group
The control group received standard HIV counseling and testing for HIV, hepatitis C, and STIs, as well as a handbook of services available in the community.

Relevant Outcomes Measured and Follow-up Time

• Sex behaviors (including any unprotected vaginal or anal intercourse and number of episodes of unprotected intercourse during the last 30 days) were measured at 3, 6, and 9 months post-baseline; this translates to immediate, 3, and 6 months post-intervention.
• Drug behaviors (including any injections with a shared needle and number of episodes of injection drug use with a shared needle during the last 30 days) were measured at 3, 6, and 9 months post-baseline; this translates to immediate, 3, and 6 months post-intervention.

Participant Retention

• HIV Risk Reduction intervention:

  71% retained immediate post-intervention
  76% retained at 3 months post-intervention
  85% retained at 6 months post-intervention

• HIV & IPV Risk Reduction intervention:

  71% retained immediate post-intervention
  71% retained at 3 months post-intervention
  84% retained at 6 months post-intervention

• Control:

  80% retained immediate post-intervention
  75% retained at 3 months post-intervention
  83% retained at 6 months post-intervention

Significant Findings

• Participants from the HIV Risk Reduction and HIV & IPV Risk Reduction interventions (combined) were significantly less likely to report any unprotected vaginal or anal intercourse compared to control participants at 3 months post-intervention (p < .05) and 6-months post-intervention (p < .05)
• Participants from the HIV Risk Reduction and HIV & IPV Risk Reduction interventions (combined) reported significantly fewer episodes of unprotected intercourse at 3 months post-intervention (p < .05) and 6 months post-intervention (p = .05) than control participants.

Considerations

• Across 3 assessment time periods, including the immediate post-intervention assessment, participants from the HIV Risk Reduction and HIV & IPV Risk Reduction interventions (combined) reported significantly fewer episodes of injecting with a shared needle than the control participants (p = .02).
• Although data from the HIV Risk Reduction and HIV & IPV Risk Reduction interventions groups were combined for analysis, we recommend the HIV Risk Reduction intervention as a best evidence intervention for the following reasons: (1) there were no significant differences at any assessment time point between the 2 intervention groups with regard to HIV risk behavior; (2) both interventions are delivered in 12 sessions over 3 months and include the same 4 Motivational Interviewing components to address HIV risk behavior; the only major difference was the use of a similar approach to include IPV issues in the HIV& IPV Risk Reduction intervention; (3) the IPV portion was not intended to affect HIV risk behavior outcomes; and (4) the HIV & IPV Risk Reduction participants, compared to the control participants, did not show a significant effect in reducing IPV (p > .05).

Go to top

References and Contact Information

• Weir, B.W., O’Brien, K., Bard, R.S., Casciato, C.J., Maher, J.E., Dent, C.W., et al. (2009). Reducing HIV and partner violence risk among women with criminal justice system involvement: A randomized controlled trial of 2 motivational interviewing-based interventions. AIDS and Behavior, 13, 509-522.

Researcher: Brian W. Weir, MPH
Department of Health, Behavior & Society
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
624 N Broadway
Baltimore, MD 21205
Email: bweir@jhsph.edu

Go to top