* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download PPTX
Sexual stimulation wikipedia , lookup
Sexual abstinence wikipedia , lookup
Pederasty in ancient Greece wikipedia , lookup
Exploitation of women in mass media wikipedia , lookup
Age of consent wikipedia , lookup
Sexual slavery wikipedia , lookup
Sexological testing wikipedia , lookup
History of homosexuality wikipedia , lookup
Abstinence-only sex education in Uganda wikipedia , lookup
Incest taboo wikipedia , lookup
Sexual racism wikipedia , lookup
Human sexual response cycle wikipedia , lookup
Human male sexuality wikipedia , lookup
Sex and sexuality in speculative fiction wikipedia , lookup
Reproductive health wikipedia , lookup
Erotic plasticity wikipedia , lookup
Hookup culture wikipedia , lookup
Sex in advertising wikipedia , lookup
Swinging (sexual practice) wikipedia , lookup
Age disparity in sexual relationships wikipedia , lookup
Human female sexuality wikipedia , lookup
History of human sexuality wikipedia , lookup
Rochdale child sex abuse ring wikipedia , lookup
Sexual ethics wikipedia , lookup
Human mating strategies wikipedia , lookup
Sexual attraction wikipedia , lookup
Lesbian sexual practices wikipedia , lookup
What’s Love Got to Do With It: Relationships and HIV Prevention Trace Kershaw Assistant Professor Social and Behavioral Sciences Program Epidemiology and Public Health Yale University PARTNRS PARTNRS The Role of Relationships in Public Health • Much of public health research focuses on individual mechanisms of health – Behaviors – Genetic • Need to look at broader context • Partners, family, friends….. • Do relationships matter? – Do partners influence health of the other individual? – Does relationship quality influence health? PARTNRS Measuring the Impact of Relationships • Most studies do not assess relationship quality or the partner’s influence • The few studies that do use: – Individual’s report of partner’s behaviors – Crude measures of relationship quality • Marital status • Relationship duration • Need to explore couple studies to assess potential mutual influences on health • Need to broaden measurement of relationship quality to include levels and type of relationships PARTNRS Relationships and Sexual and Reproductive Health • Sex occurs in interpersonal context • Relationships are often ignored • Good relationships can be protective because: – Less concurrent partnerships1 – Less partner turnover2 • New sexual partners increase risk for STDs – Better communication about current and past risk3 • Despite this, there are few relationship-based or couple based interventions 1Choi et al (1994) AJPH; 2 Niccolai et al (2004) J Adol Health; 3Cupach and Metts (1995) J of Pers Rel PARTNRS Presentation Aims • Do relationship perceptions influence sexual risk of young pregnant women? • Sexual risk and relationship functioning of young couples transitioning to parenthood – Describe relationship characteristics of young couples – Assess the association of relationship satisfaction on sexual risk – Assess predictors of relationship satisfaction of young couples during pregnancy PARTNRS Do relationship perceptions influence sexual risk of young pregnant women? PARTNRS Romantic Attachment and Sexual Risk • How young women feel about relationships may contribute to their sexual risk behavior • Romantic Attachment Theory – Partially stems from parent-child attachment – Applies to adult relationships PARTNRS Romantic Attachment and Sexual Risk: Background High Anxiety Low Avoidance Unhealthy need to be loved Secure PARTNRS Unhealthy need to be loved & Mistrust of others Mistrust of others Low Anxiety High Avoidance Romantic Attachment and Sexual Risk: Study Sample • 755 pregnant women from large RCT – – – – – 80% African-American 13% were Latina Age: M= 20.4 years (SD=2.6) Gestational age at interview: M=18 weeks 81% in current relationship • 70% with the father of the baby PARTNRS Regression of Attachment on Condom Use Percentage Attachment Avoidance Condoms mean do not trust p -.09* Condoms upset partner .23* .16* Attachment Anxiety PARTNRS -.19* Condom use selfefficacy R2= .11 -.14* Condom Use .09* -.12* Controlling for age, race, education, employment, number of children, relationship duration ; Coefficients represent standardized Beta weights Logistic Regression of Attachment on Multiple Partners and STIs Attachment Avoidance R2= .18 .23* Relationship with FOB .65* .64* Attachment Anxiety PARTNRS Coefficients represent Adjusted Odds Ratios Multiple Partners R2= .05 STIs Romantic Attachment and Sexual Risk: Conclusions • Attachment had direct or indirect effect on all 6 sexual risk beliefs and behaviors – Anxiety had more impact than avoidance – Anxiety had as big/bigger effect than traditional individual-level cognitive variables (beliefs and selfefficacy) – So is it the heart or the head? • Changing how individuals view relationships may lead to decreased sexual risk and may facilitate change of sex related beliefs and attitudes PARTNRS Sexual Risk and Relationship Functioning of Young Couples Transitioning to Parenthood PARTNRS PARTNRS: Study Design • 300 couples recruited from OB/GYN clinics in New Haven, Bridgeport, New London • In a romantic relationship; expecting a baby; women age 14-21; men age > 14; HIV negative • Interviewed 3 times: – 2nd-3rd trimester – 6-months postpartum – 12-months postpartum • Both men and women followed up regardless of relationship status PARTNRS Relationships During Pregnancy • Pregnancy is a time of stress and transition • Relationship strain among young couples heightened during pregnancy1 – 72% of adolescents involved with father of baby during pregnancy – 64% by 6-months postpartum – 50% by 12-months postpartum • Need to understand the factors related to relationship functioning during this transition and how changes in these relationships influence sexual and reproductive health 1 Misovich et al (1997) Review of General Psychology; PARTNRS PARTNRS: Model COMMUNITY/PEER SEXUAL RISK OUTCOMES FAMILY RELATIONSHIP FUNCTIONING OUTCOMES Relationship Dissolution DYAD INDIVIDUAL Attachment Avoidance Attachment Anxiety PARTNRS Relationship Dissatisfaction ExtraRelationship Partners Unprotected Sex STD Relationships and Love “Being pregnant by someone I adore and love dearly is the best feeling in the world. Just the idea of us bringing a baby into the world is an amazing feeling and we love each other which makes every day more special. We both cannot wait for our baby boy to come so we have someone else to love and cherish in our lives.” Female Participant “I feel excited and really can’t wait for this life changing experience. I know love will become redefined.” Male Participant PARTNRS Demographics • 118 couples interviewed during pregnancy Women Men 33% 40% 27% 38% 42% 20% 18.5 (1.8) Rng: 15-21 21.1 (3.9) Rng: 14-38 $14,755 Rng:2.5k-42k $15,623 Rng:2.5k-45k 40% 25% 19% 12% 4% 69% 6% 13% 6% 6% Race •Black •Hispanic •White/other Age M (SD)* Household Income Main Source of Financial Support* •Self •Partner •Parent •Public Assistance •Other Relative PARTNRS *p<.05 Pregnancy History First pregnancy Age at first pregnancy* Other children Parents response to this pregnancy (1-7) 7=happy* *p<.05 PARTNRS Women Men 61% 64% 17.5 (1.8) Rng: 11-21 19.2 (3.3) Rng: 13-30 22% 27% 4.6 (1.8) 5.4 (1.9) Pregnancy Intentions and Wantedness 100% 20 28 90% 80% 12 70% 15 60% 50% Both Man Only Woman Only Neither 18 23 40% 30% 53 31 20% 10% 0% Tried to get pregnant PARTNRS Wanted to be pregnant Relationship Characteristics • • • • • Duration: M=2.3 years (Range: 0.5-7.6) 64% currently living together 10% married 84% see each other ever day Seriousness of the relationship – Very committed: 88% of women vs. 77% of men (p<.05) PARTNRS Relationship Conflict • Among couples – 53% have broken up at least once • Mean=1.5 (range 0-100) – 64% have physical, sexual, or emotional abuse present • 37% have physical or sexual abuse present PARTNRS Victims of Abuse 50 *p<.05 45 45 40 *p<.05 33 35 Women Men Percent 30 25 22 20 *p<.05 15 10 12 9 5 2 2 0 0 Physical Abuse PARTNRS Sexual Abuse Threats to Harm Type of Abuse Emotional Abuse Sex Risk History Women Men Age at First Sex* 14.9 (1.7) 14.2 (3.0) Total Number of Partners** 4.95 (5.7) 10.01 (10.2) Ratio of Sex Partners to Serious Relationships** 2.74(2.4) 4.33(3.3) **p<.01; *p<.05 PARTNRS Sex Risk History Women Men STI History** 32.5% 11.9% STI Since Start of Relationship** 21.7% 7.5% Cheated 14.2% 17.8% IVDU Ever* 1.7% 6.8% Jail** 5.0% 27.0% Sex for Money 1.7% 3.4% Same Sex Partner** 10.2% 1.7% **p<.01 *p<.05 PARTNRS Sexual Risk Behavior • Among couples – Months going out before sex: • M=3.0 (3.3) • 43% had sex within 1 month of going out – Months having sex, before sex without a condom: • M=2.6 (3.1) • 44% had sex without a condom within 1 month – Unprotected Sex Acts • M=9.5 (11.9) – Condom Use Past 6 Months • M=19.2% (31.2) • 60% never used condoms • 3.5% always used condoms PARTNRS Sexual Risk Behavior • However, 47.5% of the couples are low risk – Neither member of couple IVDU, recent STD, jail history, msm, had sex for money, had concurrent partner; – tested for HIV since relationship began • No difference between low risk and high risk couples on condom use (p=.58) – Low risk: M=19.8 – High risk: M=17.9 PARTNRS Does Relationship Satisfaction Influence Sexual Risk? • Looked at influence of relationship satisfaction for men and women on: – – – – Cheating Intention to be faithful Sexual communication Condom use past 6 months • Controlled for age, race, relationship duration • Assessed key cognitive psycho-sexual variables including: condom attitudes, condom selfefficacy, HIV/STI knowledge, safe sex norms PARTNRS Relationship Satisfaction • Measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale1 – 32 questions that measure relationship quality of romantic relationships – Agreement on variety of topics (e.g., finances, friends; showing affection;religion) – General satisfaction with relationship (e.g., “how often do you think that things between you and your partner are going well?”) – Overall togetherness (e.g., share outside interests; engage in interesting discussions) – Intimacy and emotional expression (e.g., displaying affection, not showing love) – Has demonstrated good reliability (alpha=.80-.96) and validity1 PARTNRS 1Spanier (1976) J of Marriage and Family Results Cheated Women Men Intended to be faithful Women Men Condom attitudes OR=.71 (.36-1.40) OR=.74 (.39-1.37) -.03 -.12 Condom selfefficacy OR=.59 (.32-1.09) OR=1.28 (.64-2.53) .38* .14 HIV/STI knowledge OR=.62 (.35-1.10) OR=.99 (.55-1.57) .17 .01 Safe sex norms OR=1.61 (.85-3.03) OR=1.37 (.74-2.56) -.18 -.06 Relationship satisfaction OR=.87 (.43-1.72) OR=.33* (.18-.59) -.12 .23* *p<.05; Controlling for age, race, and relationship duration PARTNRS Results Sexual Communication Condom Use Past 6-Months Women Men Women Men Condom attitudes .24* .05 .11 -.01 Condom self efficacy .20* .09 -.13 .11 HIV/STI knowledge -.18 .16 -.02 -.30* Safe sex norms -.09 -.05 .21* -.02 Relationship satisfaction .13 .20* .13 -.16 *p<.05; Controlling for age, race, and relationship duration PARTNRS Relationship Satisfaction and Sexual Risk Cheated OR=.33* Relationship Satisfaction Women Intend to be Faithful =.23* Relationship Satisfaction Men =.20* Sex Communication Condom Use Note: Coefficients are standardized beta weights for Faithfulness Intentions and Sex Communication, and Odds Ratios for Cheated Controlling for age, race,, & relationship duration PARTNRS Conclusions • Relationship satisfaction was related to sexual risk for men but not for women – Men with high relationship satisfaction were less likely to cheat, had better sexual communication, and were more likely to intend to have sex with other people in the future – Sexual psychosocial variables did not relate to sexual risk for men • Sexual psychosocial variables did relate to sexual risk for women – More condom self-efficacy related to better sexual communication and more intention to be faithful – More positive condom attitudes related to better sexual communication – More safe sex norms related to more condom use PARTNRS Bivariate Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction Not Significant •age •income Women Men Want to be pregnant: r=.13 Want to be pregnant: r=.22* Living with partner: r=.24* •race Perceived equity: r=.65** Living with partner: r=-.02 Perceived equity: r=.43** •# children •Relationship duration •Marital status Attachment Avoidance: r=-.40** Attachment Anxiety: r=-.35** •Relationship power Frequency of Sex: r=.19* # past sex partners: r=.06 IPV: r=-.28* PARTNRS Attachment Avoidance: r=-.61** Attachment Anxiety: r=-.26* Frequency of Sex: r=.12 # past sex partners: r=-.27* IPV: r=-.25* Multivariate Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction Women Want to be pregnant: .08 Living with partner: -.05 Perceived equity: 59** Attachment Avoidance: -.25** Men Want to be pregnant: .17* Living with partner: -.14 Perceived equity: .19* Attachment Avoidance: -.50** Attachment Anxiety: .01 Attachment Anxiety: -.03 Frequency of Sex: .01 Frequency of Sex: -.13 # past sex partners: .10 IPV: -.07 Note: Coefficients are standardized beta weights PARTNRS # past sex partners: .06 IPV: -.16* Predictors of Relationship Satisfaction • Demographic variables (age, race, income) did not relate to relationship satisfaction • Proxies for relationship quality (duration, marital status) did not relate to relationship satisfaction • Strongest predictors were perceived equity in the relationship, and attachment • There were several differences between men and women on predictors of relationship satisfaction – An equitable relationship mattered more for women – Low levels of attachment avoidance mattered more for men PARTNRS Future Directions for PARTNRS • Conduct true dyadic analyses – Influence of man’s behavior and characteristics on women’s sexual and reproductive health – Influence of women’s behavior and characteristics on men’s sexual and reproductive health • Conduct longitudinal analyses to assess how changes in relationships influences reproductive and sexual health PARTNRS Future Directions • Use results to create public health interventions that integrate socialcognitive behavioral change with “relationship strengthening” programs • Create interventions that strengthen relationships by targeting attachment, equity, and communication PARTNRS • For more information visit our website at www.partnrstudy.com • If interested in joining our team, contact me: – [email protected]; 785-3441 PARTNRS Acknowledgements • The PARTNRS team: – – – – – – – – – – – – PARTNRS Anna Arnold, Project Coordinator Cynthia Palmieri, Research Assistant Kwaku Ayebi-Awuah, Research Assistant Rachael Gerber, Research Assistant Urania Magriples, Investigator Linda Niccolai, Investigator Jeannette Ickovics, Investigator Derrick Gordon, Investigator Yale New Haven Hospital St. Raphael’s Hospital Lawrence and Memorial Hospital Bridgeport Hospital