|
 |
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
© 2002 American Public Health Association
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE |
Richard A. Crosby, Ralph J. DiClemente, and Gina M. Wingood are with Rollins School of Public Health, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, and the Emory Center for AIDS Research, Atlanta, Ga. Richard A. Crosby is also a visiting Research Fellow at the Rural Center for AIDS and STD Prevention at Indiana University, Bloomington. William L. Yarber is with the Department of Applied Health Science, Indiana University, and the Rural Center for AIDS and STD Prevention at Indiana University, Bloomington. Beth Meyerson is with the Policy Resource Group, Warrenton, Mo, and Saint Louis University School of Public Health, St. Louis, Mo.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Richard A. Crosby, PhD, Rollins School of Public Health, 1518 Clifton Rd, NE, Room 542, Atlanta, GA 30322 (e-mail: rcrosby{at}sph.emory.edu).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Objectives. This study compared HIV-associated sexual health history, risk perceptions, and sexual risk behaviors of low-income rural and nonrural African American women.
Methods. A cross-sectional statewide survey of African American women (n = 571) attending federally funded Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children clinics was conducted.
Results. Adjusted analyses indicated that rural women were more likely to report not being counseled about HIV during pregnancy (P = .001), that a sex partner had not been tested for HIV (P = .005), no preferred method of prevention because they did not worry about sexually transmitted diseases (P = .02), not using condoms (P = .009), and a belief that their partner was HIV negative, despite lack of testing (P = .04).
Conclusions. This study provided initial evidence that low-income rural African American women are an important population for HIV prevention programs.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
In the United States, the incidence of HIV infection and AIDS diagnosis is increasing most rapidly among African American women.1 Compared with White and Hispanic women, African American women are disproportionately diagnosed with AIDS.1–4 This disparity has been observed throughout the course of the US AIDS epidemic.1
The geographic distribution of AIDS among African American women in the United States indicates that a vast majority of cases occur in urban epicenters and their surrounding communities. However, the diffusion of HIV to rural areas is an increasingly important issue.1,5–9 For example, a study of women residing in rural Alabama indicated a 170-fold increase in AIDS cases among African American women over a 10-year period.10 Evidence suggests that rural HIV epidemics most often affect women, particularly young adult African American women.5,11 Rural HIV epidemics also may be distinct from nonrural epidemics because rural communities may be less prepared to meet the prevention and treatment challenges imposed by the virus.12–14 Thus, an increased understanding of rural HIV epidemics is warranted. Although numerous studies have investigated correlates of HIV risk behavior among nonrural African American women15 and efficacious intervention programs have been developed,1,16,17 studies have not addressed how the AIDS epidemic has uniquely affected rural African American women.
Because of their geographic isolation from urban epicenters, rural African American women possibly could be less engaged by the potential threat of HIV infection than are their nonrural counterparts. For example, data from the National Health and Social Life Survey indicated that rural Americans were less likely than their nonrural counterparts to report any change in sexual behavior in response to the AIDS epidemic, including condom use.18 Also, a recent analysis of data collected from a national probability sample found that individuals living in rural areas were less likely to use condoms than were those living in large metropolitan areas.19 Yet, published studies have not reported specific comparisons between rural and nonrural African American women.
If rural African American women are relatively unengaged by the potential threat of HIV infection, they may be less receptive to the adoption of HIV-protective behaviors. An emerging behavioral theory, the Precaution Adoption Process Model, directly addresses this issue.20–23 This theory, previously applied to women's health behaviors,23 posits that people pass through 2 stages before they contemplate the overall benefit of protective action. The first stage is global awareness of the threat, and the second is personal engagement (i.e., perceiving the threat at a personal level). Although global awareness of HIV threat is probably widespread in this third decade of AIDS, many women may not perceive HIV threat at the personal level, particularly those who feel geographically insulated from the AIDS epidemic because they do not reside in or near AIDS epicenters.
The purpose of this study was to compare HIV-associated sexual health history, risk perceptions, and sexual risk behaviors of low-income rural and nonrural African American women. We chose to conduct this study exclusively with low-income women because this population is likely to experience disproportionately high rates of HIV infection.24 Because AIDS has predominately affected urban and suburban women, we hypothesized that rural women would report sexual health histories, risk perceptions, and sexual risk behaviors that suggest comparatively less personal engagement in the threat of HIV infection.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Study Sample
Data from a statewide survey of women attending federally funded Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) clinics in Missouri were used for this study. More than 90% of the Missouri counties are rural. We used a stratified random sampling scheme to control the selection of rural and nonrural counties. The strata were rural, suburban, and urban counties. Based on guidelines from the US Census Bureau,25 rural counties were defined as those with a population of less than 50 000. Alternatively, urban counties were defined as those with a population of more than 500 000, and suburban counties were defined as those with populations ranging from 50 000 to 500 000. Within each strata, simple random sampling was used to select clusters (i.e., WIC clinics). We purposely oversampled rural counties.
Twenty-one counties were selected: 17 were rural and 4 were suburban. Because Missouri had only 2 urban counties, these were automatically included in the sample. To confirm that the rural counties selected were not "fringe" counties of metropolitan areas, we identified each county's rural–urban continuum code as most recently assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.26 Office of Management and Budget rankings are based on the proximity of counties to metropolitan areas. The Office of Management and Budget has ranked each US county on a continuum of 0 (greatest degree of urbanicity) to 9 (greatest degree of rurality). The mean ranking of the 17 rural counties was 7.
The 23 selected counties contained 29 WIC clinics. Each clinic director was contacted by the principal investigator and solicited for his or her cooperation in the study. This procedure yielded a high participation rate: 27 of the 29 (93%) clinics agreed to participate. WIC clinics in 21 counties served as data collection sites. Women receiving WIC benefits from the 27 clinics were eligible to participate in the study if they were aged 18 years or older and consented to study participation. The Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at Indiana University and the Internal Review Board for the Missouri Department of Health approved the study protocol.
Data Collection
Every 2 months, women who received WIC benefits came to the clinic to pick up their vouchers. Thus, to ensure that all women had a chance to participate in the survey, we chose to conduct the data collection phase during a 2-month period. From February through April 1998, all eligible women entering WIC clinics were asked if they would be interested in participating in a brief survey about women's health practices. Women who agreed to participate were given a self-administered survey and a preaddressed, postage-paid envelope for the return of the survey. Surveys were anonymous; however, they were coded to indicate rural, suburban, or urban location. Incentives for survey participation were not provided.
About 90% (4117) of the women solicited agreed to participate in the study, and 58% of these women returned a survey in the mail (n = 2391). Despite the lack of incentives, this return rate approximated previously reported rates obtained from studies of HIV- or AIDS-associated sexual behavior that used large probability samples.27–30 Although the statewide survey was designed to measure reasons that low-income women do not always use condoms for the prevention of HIV infection, the purpose of the current analysis was to compare HIV-associated sexual health histories, risk perceptions, and sexual risk behaviors of low-income rural and nonrural African American women. Thus, the data analyzed for this study represent only those collected from African American women responding to the statewide survey (n = 571).
Measures
The survey instrument was developed on the basis of the underlying theoretical model, a review of the relevant literature, and a series of ad hoc key-informant interviews followed by pilot testing. The interviews were held among approximately 12 low-income women from the target population. Findings from these women provided guidance in the refinement of language used in the questionnaire as well the overall structure of each question. The findings also were useful in establishing the relevance and reading level of the questions. Subsequent pilot testing of the instrument was conducted among 30 lowincome women from the target population. After completing the questionnaire, women were interviewed to determine which questions were uncomfortable to answer or were difficult to understand. Findings from this phase of the study provided the research team with feedback that confirmed acceptability and adequate comprehension of the questions.
Twelve measures hypothesized to vary by rural and nonrural residence were assessed (Table 1
). Six measures were relevant to women's sexual health history, 2 were relevant to women's perceptions of risk, and 4 were relevant to women's sexual risk behaviors. With one exception, all variables were assessed with nominal measurement. The exception—frequency of condom use—was assessed with a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from "never" to "always." For measures that involved a time-limited recall period, a period of 2 months was selected to enhance accurate reporting.31,32 The survey also included an item that assessed whether women were currently infected with HIV. Women who indicated HIV infection (n = 5) were not included in the analyses.
|
Data Analysis
Rural vs nonrural residence served as the primary correlate of interest. The relation of this correlate to the measures shown in Table 1
was established through several sequential steps. First, because of skewed responses, the ordinal measure of condom use was collapsed to form a dichotomous measure (never vs some use). Strength of bivariate associations between geographic residence (i.e., rural vs nonrural county) and measures of sexual health history, risk perception, and sexual risk behaviors was assessed by prevalence ratios. To control for confounding effects, demographic variables were tested before conducting the primary analyses. Also, 2 potential confounders relevant to the analysis of frequency of condom use were assessed: pregnancy status and frequency of sexual intercourse. Measures of sexual health history, risk perception, and sexual risk behaviors achieving a screening level of bivariate significance (P < .10) were sequentially tested for significance in the presence of the observed covariates. Thus, a separate logistic regression analysis was conducted for each outcome measure achieving bivariate significance. This process yielded adjusted odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and corresponding P values.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Characteristics of the Sample
Of the 2391 women responding to the statewide survey, 24% self-identified as African American. Among the African American women, the majority (72%) were from urban counties, with 4% and 24% coming from suburban and rural counties, respectively. Table 2
provides a comparison of demographic and other potentially confounding variables (i.e., current pregnancy status and frequency of sex) between African American women from rural and nonrural counties. As shown, only 1 variable (education level) was identified as a potential confounder.
|
Bivariate Associations
Table 1
shows the percentages of rural and nonrural women reporting various measures of sexual health history, risk perception, and sexual risk behaviors. Table 1 also shows the bivariate associations between geographic residence and the assessed measures. As shown, 7 of the 12 measures achieved significance at P < .05.
Logistic Regression Analyses
Table 3 includes the adjusted odds ratios for measures that achieved the screening level of bivariate significance. After adjustment for the observed covariate (level of education), the 2 measures that achieved a significant screening level of significance (P < .10) remained nonsignificant. Adjusted odds ratios indicated that rural women were about 2 times more likely than urban women to report (1) a lack of HIV counseling during their last pregnancy, (2) that a sex partner had been tested for HIV infection, (3) no preferred HIV prevention methods because they did not worry about becoming infected by HIV or sexually transmitted diseases, (4) never using condoms, and (5) not using condoms because they believed that their current partner was HIV negative, despite lack of HIV testing. Rural women were about 50% less likely to report (1) ever having gonorrhea or syphilis and (2) not using condoms because the current partner had tested negative for HIV infection.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Controlled analyses generally supported the study hypothesis. Fewer rural than nonrural women reported sexual health histories, risk perceptions, and sexual risk behaviors that suggested personal engagement in the threat of HIV infection. For example, fewer rural than nonrural women reported ever being diagnosed with gonorrhea or syphilis. Nonrural women may have been influenced by this adverse experience to the extent that diagnosis enhanced their perceptions of personal vulnerability to HIV. The lack of counseling about HIV during pregnancy also may have contributed to the lack of engagement among rural women. The finding that rural women were more likely to report that a sex partner had not been tested for HIV suggests that their partners also may have been unengaged by this threat.
In addition, lower condom use among rural women may be, at least in part, a result of lack of concerns about HIV. The finding that rural women were more likely to indicate that they did not use condoms because they believed that their partner was HIV negative is also important. Because this belief was based on something other than the partner's HIV test, the finding suggests that rural women may be more likely than nonrural women to "take their partners' word" that they are HIV negative. Similarly, rural women were less likely than nonrural women to report that they did not use condoms because their partner had been tested for HIV. Although nonuse of condoms on the basis of partner HIV testing could be considered risky (i.e., the partner may have lied about being tested, or the partner may have acquired HIV after the last test), this practice is the best public health alternative to consistent and correct condom use throughout the course of a relationship—an especially unrealistic goal in the context of long-term relationships, particularly those that involve intent to conceive a child.
A few related studies provide support for our study findings suggesting low personal engagement in the threat of HIV infection among low-income rural African American women. For example, a recent study reported that rural minority and low-income women living with HIV or AIDS typically had believed, before their diagnosis, that they could not get infected or that their sex partners were not infected.33 In another study of persons living with HIV or AIDS, participants were more likely to report that they had acquired HIV in a rural as opposed to a nonrural area.34 A study of predominantly African American adults attending a rural sexually transmitted disease clinic also provided evidence that rural women may commonly engage in behaviors that place them at high risk for HIV infection.35 However, none of these studies made analytic comparisons between rural women and their nonrural counterparts; thus, our findings represent a starting point for subsequent empirical investigations designed to identify behavioral differences between low-income rural and nonrural African American women.
Limitations
The findings of this study were limited by the use of self-reported measures. Also, the study did not assess a comprehensive range of HIV-associated risk and protective behaviors (e.g., injection drug use, recent HIV testing). A further limitation was that we did not assess the relative extent of the 2 groups' relocation between rural and nonrural areas. Differential relocation rates between rural and nonrural women could influence the study findings. In addition, the study sample was limited to low-income African American women who attended WIC clinics; thus, findings cannot be generalized to lowincome African American women who do not receive WIC benefits. Furthermore, the response rate of 58% could indicate a response bias, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings. Finally, the findings cannot be generalized to low-income African American women from states other than Missouri; however, the findings can be used to guide similar research efforts in other rural states. More research is needed with larger and more diverse samples of African American women, as well as with rural women from other racial/ethnic groups and diverse socioeconomic strata.
Conclusions
Prevention efforts tailored to African American women are an important public health priority because of this population's disproportionately high risk of HIV infection. This study provides initial evidence suggesting that low-income rural African American women are less engaged than their nonrural counterparts by the threat of HIV infection. In general, rural African American women believed themselves to be less susceptible to HIV because of personal or partner-related perceptions of protection from the epidemic. Given the potential diffusion of HIV from the high-concentration epicenters to rural areas, these perceptions may be highly problematic in regard to the adoption of protective practices such as condom use. Thus, rural African American women may be an especially important population for HIV prevention initiatives. Further research should identify factors that affect personal engagement in HIV prevention among rural African American women. Such research is critical to guiding the development and implementation of effective HIV prevention programs for this population.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This study was supported, in part, by a grant from the Rural Center for AIDS and STD Prevention to Dr Crosby.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
R. A. Crosby designed, planned, and implemented the statewide survey, with assistance from W. L. Yarber and B. Meyerson. R. A. Crosby also planned and conducted the analyses, with assistance from G. M. Wingood and R. J. DiClemente. R. A. Crosby prepared the manuscript with guidance and assistance from W. L. Yarber, R. J. DiClemente, G. M. Wingood, and B. Meyerson.
Accepted for publication December 16, 2001.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
1. Hader SL, Smith DK, Moore JS, Holmberg SD. HIV infection in women in the United Sates: status at the millennium. JAMA.2001;285:1186–1192.
2.
Rosenberg PS. Scope of the AIDS epidemic in the United States. Science.1995;270:1372–1375.
3.
Wortley PM, Fleming PL. AIDS in women in the United States. JAMA.1997;278:911–916.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report. Midyear ed. Atlanta, Ga: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2000.
5. Wasser SC, Gwinn M, Fleming P. Urban–nonurban distribution of HIV infection in childbearing women in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr.1993;6:1035–1042.
6. Ellerbrock TV, Lieb S, Harrington PE, et al. Heterosexually transmitted human immunodeficiency virus infection among pregnant women in a rural Florida community. N Engl J Med.1992;327:1704–1709.[Abstract]
7. Lam NS, Lui K. Spread of AIDS in rural America, 1982–1990. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr.1994;7:485–490.
8.
Voelker R. Rural communities struggle with AIDS. JAMA.1998;279:5–6.
9.
Holmberg SD. The estimated prevalence and incidence of HIV in 96 large US metropolitan areas. Am J Public Health.1996;86:642–654.
10. Holmes R, Fawal H, Moon TD, et al. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome in Alabama: special concerns for black women. South Med J.1997;90:697–701.[Medline]
11. Rural Center for AIDS and STD Prevention. HIV/AIDS patterns differ between rural sample and national data. Rural Prev Rep.1997;4(2):
12. Castenda D. HIV/AIDS-related services for women and the rural community context. AIDS Care.2000;12:549–565.[Medline]
13. Sowell RL, Lowenstein A, Moneyham L, Demi A, Mizuno Y, Seals BE. Resources, stigma, and patterns of disclosure in rural women with HIV infection. Public Health Nurs.1997;14:302–312.[Medline]
14.
Graham RP, Forrester ML, Wysong JA, Rosenthal TC, James PA. HIV/AIDS in the rural United States: epidemiology and health services delivery. Med Care Res Rev.1995;52:435–452.
15. Jemmott LS, Catan V, Nyamathi A, Anastasia J. African American women and HIV-risk-reduction issues. In: O'Leary A, Jemmott LS, eds. Women at Risk: Issues in the Primary Prevention of AIDS. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1995:131–158.
16.
DiClemente RJ, Wingood GM. A randomized controlled trial of an HIV sexual-risk-reduction intervention for young African American women. JAMA.1995;274:1271–1276.
17. O'Leary A, Wingood GM. Interventions for sexually active heterosexual women. In: Peterson JL, DiClemente RJ, eds. Handbook of HIV Prevention. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 2000:179–200.
18. Feinleib JA, Michael RT. Reported changes in sexual behavior in response to AIDS in the United States. Prev Med.1998;27:400–411.[Medline]
19. Anderson JE, Wilson R, Doll L, Jones TS, Barker P. Condom use and HIV risk behaviors among US adults: data from a national survey. Fam Plann Perspect.1999;31:24–28.[Medline]
20. Weinstein ND. The precaution adoption process. Health Psychol.1988;7:355–386.[Medline]
21. Weinstein ND. Perceptions of personal susceptibility to harm. In: Mays VM, Albee GW, Schneider SF, eds. Primary Prevention of AIDS. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications; 1989:142–167.
22. Weinstein ND, Rothman AJ, Sutton SR. Stage theories of health behavior: conceptual and methodological issues. Health Psychol.1998;17:290–299.[Medline]
23. Weinstein ND, Sandman P. The precaution adoption process model and its application. In: DiClemente RJ, Crosby RA, Kegler M, eds. Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research. New York, NY: Jossey-Bass/Wiley. In press.
24. Aral SO, Wasserheit JN. Interactions among HIV, other sexually transmitted diseases, socioeconomic status, and poverty in women. In: O'Leary A, Jemmott LS, eds. Women at Risk: Issues in the Primary Prevention of AIDS. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1995:1342.
25. US Census Bureau Web site. Available at: http://www.census.gov. Accessed May 29, 2001.
26. Economic Research Service, US Dept of Agriculture. Measuring rurality. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/rurality. Accessed August 30, 2001.
27. Catania JA, Coates TJ, Peterson J, et al. Changes in condom use among black, Hispanic, and white heterosexuals in San Francisco: the AMEN cohort survey. J Sex Res. 1993;30:121–128.
28.
Catania JA, Coates TJ, Stall R, et al. Prevalence of AIDS-related risk factors and condom use in the United States. Science.1992;258:1101–1106.
29. Kanouse D, Berry S, Gorman E, Yano E, Carson S, Abrahamse A. AIDS-Related Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs, and Behaviors in Los Angeles County. Santa Monica, Calif: Rand; 1991.
30. Catania JA, Gibson DR, Chitwood DD, Coates TJ. Methodological problems in AIDS behavioral research: influences on measurement error and participation bias in studies of sexual behavior. Psychol Bull.1990;108:339–362.[Medline]
31.
Kelly JA, Murphy DA, Washington CD, et al. The effects of HIV/AIDS intervention groups for high-risk women in urban clinics. Am J Public Health.1994;84:1918–1922.
32. McFarlane M, St. Lawrence JS. Adolescents' recall of sexual behavior: consistency of self-report and the effect of variations in recall duration. J Adolesc Health.1999;15:199–206.
33. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Risks for HIV infection among persons residing in rural areas and small cities —selected sites, southern United States, 1995–1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.1998;47:974–978.[Medline]
34. Roberts NE, Collmer JE, Wispelwey B, Farr BM. Urbs in rure redux: changing risk factors for rural HIV infection. Am J Med Sci.1997;314:3–10.[Medline]
35. Thomas JC, Lansky A, Weiner DH, Earp JA, Schoenbach VJ. Behaviors that facilitate sexual transmission of HIV and STD in a rural community. AIDS Behav.1999;3:257–267.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. M. Devries, C. J. Free, L. Morison, and E. Saewyc Factors Associated With the Sexual Behavior of Canadian Aboriginal Young People and Their Implications for Health Promotion Am J Public Health, May 1, 2009; 99(5): 855 - 862. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. D. Rhodes, K. C. Hergenrather, A. M. Wilkin, and C. Jolly Visions and Voices: Indigent Persons Living With HIV in the Southern United States Use Photovoice to Create Knowledge, Develop Partnerships, and Take Action Health Promot Pract, April 1, 2008; 9(2): 159 - 169. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. J. Brown and C. D. Waite Perceptions of Risk and Resiliency Factors Associated With Rural African American Adolescents' Substance Abuse and HIV Behaviors Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, April 1, 2005; 11(2): 88 - 100. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |