Share this article on:

Structural Interventions for HIV Prevention in the United States

Adimora, Adaora A MD, MPH*; Auerbach, Judith D PhD†

JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes: 15 December 2010 - Volume 55 - Issue - pp S132-S135
doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181fbcb38
Supplement Article

Background: Structural interventions change the environment in which people act to influence their health behaviors. Most structural interventions research for HIV infection has focused on developing countries, with the United States receiving substantially less attention. This article identifies some social determinants of HIV vulnerability in the United States and structural interventions to address them.

Methods: Review of the medical, public health, and social science literature.

Results: Evidence supports widespread implementation of a number of structural interventions in the United States clearly proximate to HIV, including comprehensive sex education, universal condom availability, expanded syringe access for drug users, health care coverage, and stable housing. Sociological plausibility supports evaluation and implementation of other interventions that target social determinants more distal but of relevance to HIV, such as initiatives to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in criminal sentencing, to promote early childhood education and to decrease poverty.

Conclusions: Structural interventions that address social determinants of HIV infection may be among the most cost effective methods of preventing HIV infection in the United States over the long term.

From the *Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and †San Francisco AIDS Foundation, San Francisco, CA.

This research was supported by National Institutes of Health 1K24HD059358-01 (Dr. A.A.A.).

Correspondence to: Adaora A. Adimora, MD, MPH, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 (e-mail: adimora@med.unc.edu).

Back to Top | Article Outline

INTRODUCTION

In July 2010, the Obama Administration released the first National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States. The strategy targets and coordinates the nation's response to the domestic HIV epidemic. With its goals of reducing new HIV infections, increasing access to care and improving health outcomes for people living with HIV infection, and reducing HIV-associated health disparities, the strategy envisions a United States “where new HIV infections are rare and when they do occur, every person, regardless of age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or socioeconomic circumstances, will have unfettered access to high quality, life-extending care, free from stigma and discrimination.”1

This vision reflects an understanding increasingly shared by public health researchers and practitioners that social determinants-the conditions in which people are born, live, work, and age2-are critical influences on health and that these determinants, which are shaped by the distribution of money, power, and resources, can be influenced in positive ways. Structural interventions for HIV prevention attempt to affect these determinants by changing the environment in which individuals engage in health-related behaviors.3 Evidence suggests that interventions that address the contextual factors that influence people's behavior are more successful than interventions that focus solely on individuals and ignore the larger context.4 In addition, financial analyses show that structural changes, although costly, may have the greatest effect over the long term in reducing the number of new HIV infections, and yielding other social benefits, such as improvements in economic productivity and advances in human rights.5

Structural interventions for HIV prevention typically involve at least one of the following: effecting policy or legal changes; enabling environmental changes; shifting harmful social norms; catalyzing social and political change; and empowering communities and groups.6,7 Interest in structural interventions has grown in recent years, but most research and programmatic efforts in this realm have focused on developing countries.8-10 We argue, however, (as have others11-13) that much can be done in the United States to address key social determinants of the nation's epidemic and help achieve both the goals and the vision of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy by implementing structural interventions of various types. After identifying some key social determinants, we outline examples of structural interventions to address them. Some of these have been well described elsewhere; others may seem more novel in their connection to HIV/AIDS.

Back to Top | Article Outline

SOCIAL DETERMINANTS UNDERPIN THE US HIV EPIDEMIC

Substantial evidence documents the role of social determinants in health outcomes at the individual level and community level.14 Macroeconomic and social forces, such as poverty, racism, sexism, and homophobia, help fuel HIV epidemics, although the pathways between these forces and HIV infection are complex and not always clear.15-19 The US epidemic-with its disproportionate impact on gay and other men who have sex with men (MSM), people of color, drug users, and people living in the South-concentrates HIV among groups that often overlap demographically and geographically and share some core social determinants of infection.

More than half of new HIV infections in the United States (53%) occur among gay and other MSM.20 Homophobia and homonegativity promote HIV transmission. Negative attitudes about homosexuality have been translated into legal and policy restrictions on sexual behaviors (eg, sodomy) and relationships (eg, marriage) among gay people. These restrictions tend to marginalize and exclude gay people and drive their relationships underground. Thus, many MSM do not publicly identify (or self identify) as “gay,” or seek HIV prevention and sexual health information services targeted to gay communities. Internalized homonegativity has been associated with unprotected anal intercourse, a major route of HIV transmission, particularly for gay and other MSM.21

About 12% of new HIV infections in the United States occur among injecting drug users.20 Lack of access to sterile needles and syringes and addiction treatment programs contributes to the spread of HIV among injectors, their sex partners, and others within their social/sexual networks.6 Although harm reduction services markedly decrease HIV incidence and prevalence,22 their availability is limited, in large part because of the ban on the use of federal funds to support syringe exchange programs that existed under US law until January 2010 and the persistent shortage of addiction treatment and substitution therapy programs.6 Despite the fact that drug misuse and addiction are fundamentally biological, psychological, and social problems manifest at the individual level, society dictates the availability of programs and services to combat them. Resistance to harm reduction efforts is ideological and political; the United States has adopted a no-tolerance approach, aggressively criminalizing drug use but with relatively little public health response.

Criminalization of drug users and the war on drugs have helped make US incarceration rates the highest in the world;23 about 1% of Americans were incarcerated in jail or prison in 2007.24 Blacks and Hispanics are imprisoned at dramatically disproportionate rates-not only because of the war on drugs, which has targeted blacks,25 but also because of pervasive ongoing racial disparities in sentencing related to many other types of convictions.26 High incarceration rates disrupt sexual partnerships, impoverish individuals and communities, and alter the ratio of men to women that, together, help drive sexual network patterns, and ultimately increase the vulnerability of communities and individuals to HIV infection.16

HIV prevalence is higher in the United States among people who are poor than among those who are not poor.27 A number of pathways link poverty and HIV infection.16 For example, poverty decreases health care access, which can increase the duration of treatable sexually transmitted diseases, which facilitate HIV transmission.28 Targeted marketing of crack cocaine to poor neighborhoods29 increases residents' risk of exposure to crack use and exchange of sex for drugs. Poverty increases the risk of unstable housing and homelessness, which in turn increase likelihood of HIV risk behaviors.30

Back to Top | Article Outline

STRUCTURAL INTERVENTIONS TO TARGET SOCIAL DETERMINANTS

A number of structural approaches effect policy-legal changes, enable environmental changes, shift harmful social norms, catalyze social and political change, or empower communities and groups to address social drivers that fuel HIV in the United States. Some are well researched and documented by strong empirical evidence, and others have sociological plausibility19 but have not yet been connected as directly to HIV/AIDS.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Structural Interventions With Evidence of Efficacy

Comprehensive Sex Education With Access to Male and Female Condoms

Sex education is an essential HIV prevention strategy, and access to accurate sexual health information is a fundamental human right.31,32 Comprehensive sex education programs include respectful acknowledgement of gender and sexual diversity, and health promotion and disease prevention information and access to the tools to engage in safer sex (ie, condoms). Such programs have frequently met with opposition at federal, state and local levels despite their effectiveness in decreasing risky sexual behaviors (promoting delayed initiation of intercourse, reduced frequency of intercourse, decreased number of sex partners) among young people.33,34 Nevertheless, broad implementation of comprehensive sex education and condom availability through, for example, contingent funding policies ought to and can be put in place now as a structural intervention with potential for significant impact in reducing both gender and racial disparities in HIV rates.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Syringe Exchange Programs

Syringe exchange programs, a harm reduction intervention, aim to reduce risk of disease transmission in the context of continued drug use. These programs, usually initiated by community-based organizations and advocates, have demonstrated efficacy in reducing HIV transmission,35,36 are cost-effective,37,38 and do not promote injection drug use.39 However, wider implementation of syringe exchange programs in the United States has been limited by the previous long-standing ban on the use of federal funds to support them, by state and local legal and regulatory restrictions, and, at times, by local community opposition.39 The recent policy-legal change allowing federal funding of syringe exchange programs and the guidance documents developed by federal agencies for the use of such funds themselves constitute a structural intervention that should have significant impact on drug-use-driven HIV and hepatitis epidemics in the United States and should mitigate some of the racial disparities in HIV infections.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Health Care Availability

Health care availability and quality are important social determinants of health.14 Disparities in access to health care are much greater in the United States than in other industrialized countries and contribute to the dramatic racial and ethnic disparities in rates of chronic diseases, including HIV.40 In 2008, 46.3 million people in the United States (15.4% of the population) lacked health insurance.41 Health care reform, a structural intervention that was finally enacted in 2010, should substantially reduce the number of uninsured persons. Effective health care involves access to services and medications shown to be effective, such as HIV testing and antiretroviral therapy.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Stable Housing

A growing body of evidence indicates that provision of stable housing is an effective strategy for both reducing HIV-associated risk behaviors and increasing access to care and adherence to antiretroviral medications.42,43 Guaranteed housing, provided through laws and subsidies, would not only affect a substantial number of the estimated 3.5 million people in the United States who experience homelessness annually44 but would also decrease morbidity from HIV/AIDS and numerous other chronic diseases.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Sociologically Plausible Structural Interventions

Most of the structural interventions mentioned above target immediate conditions of social life that increase vulnerability to HIV and its negative health outcomes. Few evaluated interventions actually target the social determinants that underlie those conditions-that is, those that render people homeless or drug addicted in the first place.45 Nevertheless, there is substantial sociological plausibility that addressing these upstream factors would decrease the domestic HIV epidemic.

For example, as noted earlier, the high incarceration rates in the United States that contribute to the domestic HIV epidemic, especially among blacks and Hispanics, are maintained in part by pervasive and ongoing racial disparities in sentencing.26 One of the stated goals of the Department of Justice's Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2007 through 2012 is to ensure fair and efficient administration of justice.46 Yet none of the objectives selected to achieve this goal involves addressing sentencing disparities. While passage of legislation decreasing sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine convictions constitutes a major step forward,47 incarceration's impact on HIV and a host of other societal problems makes elimination of the persistent racial bias in sentencing for all crimes an obvious target.

Early childhood academic enrichment programs can lead to improved mental health outcomes, higher socioeconomic status, and lower rates of participation in crime.48-50 Health outcomes have improved after income supplementation.51,52 Investments in disadvantaged children and adults can reduce crime and improve economic productivity, realizing positive economic returns.53 Given the pathways that link low educational attainment, poverty, incarceration, and HIV in the US epidemic, such investment would likely decrease not only HIV infection rates but also other disease outcomes.

Similarly, structural interventions that decrease poverty should be evaluated and implemented. Microfinancing and cash-transfer interventions have been tested in developing countries10 and, to a much lesser degree, in the United States.54 Projects are currently being piloted in the United States as structural interventions to decrease the economic dependency that promotes high-risk behaviors and resultant HIV infection (Kevin Fenton, personal communication, July 8, 2010).

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSIONS: IMPLEMENTATION AND RESEARCH

Addressing the social determinants of the domestic HIV epidemic through widespread implementation of structural interventions, although essential, is not without scientific and political challenges. Establishing the evidence base for the efficacy and effectiveness of such interventions requires seriously embracing this approach as a legitimate research pursuit and expanding efforts beyond the traditional biomedical and behavioral research paradigms. Research must clearly trace the pathways between social determinants and HIV infection and develop new methodologies to develop and test structural interventions to disrupt these pathways.6,9 Given the scope and scale of this research, it will require development and strengthening of collaborations among communities, academia, government, and the private sector.12 Findings from such research will help convince the public, policy makers, and funders that understanding and successfully addressing the social and structural determinants of HIV infection in the United States will ultimately save money and help us achieve the goals of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy.

Back to Top | Article Outline

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Drs. Victor J. Schoenbach, Paul A. Godley, Kevin A. Fenton, and Myron S. Cohen for their insightful comments.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. White House Office of National AIDS Policy. National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States. Washington, DC: The White House; 2010. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/NHAS.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2010.
2. Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Social determinants of health [World Health Organization Web site]. 2010. Available at: http://www.who.int/social_determinants/en/. Accessed March 22, 2010.
3. Cohen DA, Wu SY, Farley TA. Structural interventions to prevent HIV/sexually transmitted disease: are they cost-effective for women in the southern United States? Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(Suppl 7):S46-S49.
4. Coates TJ, Richter L, Caceres C. Behavioural strategies to reduce HIV transmission: how to make them work better. Lancet. 2008;372:669-684.
5. Hecht R, Bollinger L, Stover J, et al. Critical choices in financing the response to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28:1591-1605.
6. Auerbach J. Transforming social structures and environments to help in HIV prevention. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28:1655-1665.
7. Vincent R. Measuring social and structural change for HIV prevention. Presented at: UNAIDS Think Tank on Evaluation of HIV Prevention; September 1-4, 2009; Wilton Park, Sussex, United Kingdom.
8. Basu I, Jana S, Rotheram-Borus MJ, et al. HIV prevention among sex workers in India. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004;36:845-852.
9. Gupta GR, Parkhurst JO, Ogden JA, et al. Structural approaches to HIV prevention. Lancet. 2008;372:764-775.
10. Pronyk PM, Hargreaves JR, Kim JC, et al. Effect of a structural intervention for the prevention of intimate-partner violence and HIV in rural South Africa: a cluster randomised trial. Lancet. 2006;368:1973-1983.
11. Sumartojo E. Structural factors in HIV prevention: concepts, examples, and implications for research. AIDS. 2000;14(Suppl 1):S3-S10.
12. Sumartojo E, Doll L, Holtgrave D, et al. Enriching the mix: incorporating structural factors into HIV prevention. AIDS. 2000;14(Suppl 1):S1-S2.
13. Blankenship KM, Bray SJ, Merson MH. Structural interventions in public health. AIDS. 2000;14(Suppl 1):S11-S21.
14. Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. Final Report of the Commission on on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2008.
15. Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ. Contextual factors and the black-white disparity in heterosexual HIV transmission. Epidemiology. 2002;13:707-712.
16. Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ. Social context, sexual networks, and racial disparities in rates of sexually transmitted infections. J Infect Dis. 2005;191(Suppl 1):S115-S122.
17. Lane SD, Rubinstein RA, Keefe RH, et al. Structural violence and racial disparity in HIV transmission. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2004;15:319-335.
18. Blankenship KM, Friedman SR, Dworkin S, et al. Structural interventions: concepts, challenges and opportunities for research. J Urban Health. 2006;83:59-72.
19. Auerbach JD, Parkhurst JO, Cáceres CF, et al.Addressing Social Drivers of HIV/AIDS: Some Conceptual, Methodological, and Evidentiary Considerations. New York, NY: aids2031; August 2009. Working paper #24. Available at: http://www.aids2031.org/working-groups/social-drivers. Accessed August 6, 2010.
20. National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention. HIV Incidence. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2008. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/incidence.htm. Accessed June 29, 2010.
21. Ross MW, Rosser BR, Neumaier ER. The relationship of internalized homonegativity to unsafe sexual behavior in HIV-seropositive men who have sex with men. AIDS Educ Prev. 2008;20:547-557.
22. Wodak A, Cooney A. Effectiveness of sterile needle and syringe programmes. Int J Drug Policy. 2005;16(Suppl 1):S31-S44.
23. Walmsley R. World Prison Population List. 8th ed. London, United Kingdom: King's College London International Centre for Prison Studies; 2009. Available at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/wppl-8th_41.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2010.
24. Pew Center on the States. One in One Hundred: Behind Bars in America in 2008. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts. Available at: ttp://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/One%20in%20100.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2010.
25. Fellner J, Vinck P. Targeting Blacks: Drug Law Enforcement and Race in the United States. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch; 2008. Available at: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/us0508/. Accessed June 30, 2010.
26. Kansal T, Mauer M.Racial Disparity in Sentencing: A Review of the Literature. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project; January 2005. Available at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_sentencing_review.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2010.
27. Denning P, DiNenno E. Communities in crisis: is there a generalized HIV epidemic in impoverished urban areas of the United States? Presented at: XVIII International AIDS Conference; July 16-19, 2010; Vienna, Austria.
28. Aral S, Holmes K. Social and behavioral determinants of the epidemiology of STDs: industrialized and developing countries. In: Holmes K, Per-Anders M, Sparling PF, et al, eds. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1999.
29. Krieger N. Embodying inequality: a review of concepts, measures, and methods for studying health consequences of discrimination. Int J Health Serv. 1999;29:295-352.
30. Aidala A, Cross JE, Stall R, et al. Housing status and HIV risk behaviors: implications for prevention and policy. AIDS Behav. 2005;9:251-265.
31. Santelli J, Ott MA, Lyon M, et al. Abstinence and abstinence-only education: a review of US policies and programs. J Adolesc Health. 2006;38:72-81.
32. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. HIV/AIDS and Human Rights International Guidelines: Second International Consultation on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights. Geneva, 23-25 September 1996. New York, NY; United Nations; 1998.
33. Kirby D. Emerging Answers 2007: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy; 2007.
34. Card JJ, Lessard L, Benner T. PASHA: facilitating the replication and use of effective adolescent pregnancy and STI/HIV prevention programs. J Adolesc Health. 2007;40:275.e1-e14.
35. Hurley SF, Jolley DJ, Kaldor JM. Effectiveness of needle-exchange programmes for prevention of HIV infection. Lancet. 1997;349:1797-1800.
36. National Institutes of Health. Interventions to prevent HIV risk behaviors. NIH Consensus Development Conference Statement. February 11-13, 1997;15(2):1-41. Available at: http://consensus.nih.gov/1997/1997PreventHIVRisk104html.htm. Accessed June 20, 2010.
37. Lurie P, Gorsky R, Jones TS, et al. An economic analysis of needle exchange and pharmacy-based programs to increase sterile syringe availability for injection drug users. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1998;18(Suppl 1):S126-S132.
38. Holtgrave DR, Pinkerton SD. Updates of cost of illness and quality of life estimates for use in economic evaluations of HIV prevention programs. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1997;16:54-62.
39. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Syringe Exchange Programs. 2005. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/idu/facts/aed_idu_syr.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2010.
40. Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR, eds. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003.
41. DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Smith JC. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2009. US Census Bureau, Current Population Reports P60-236. Available at: http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf. Accessed August 10, 2010.
42. National AIDS Housing Coalition. Housing Is the Foundation of HIV Prevention and Treatment: Results of the National Housing and HIV/AIDS Research Summit. NAHC Housing Summit Policy Paper. Washington, DC: National AIDS Housing Coalition; 2005. Available at: http://www.nationalaidshousing.org/PDF/Housing%20&%20HIV-AIDS%20Policy%20Paper%2005.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2010.
43. Wolitski RJ, Kidder DP, Pals SL, et al. Randomized trial of the effects of housing assistance on the health and risk behaviors of homeless and unstably housed people living with HIV. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:493-503.
44. National Coalition for the Homeless. How Many People Experience Homelessness? Washington, DC: National Coalition for the Homeless; 2009. Available at: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/How_Many.html. Accessed March 19, 2009.
45. Bambra C, Gibson M, Sowden A, et al. Tackling the wider social determinants of health and health inequalities: evidence from systematic reviews. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010;64:284-291.
46. Office of the Attorney General. Stewards of the American Dream: The Department of Justice Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2007-2012. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Available at: http://www.justice.gov/jmd/mps/strategic2007-2012/strategic_plan20072012.pdf. Accessed August 10, 2010.
47. Baker P. Obama signs law narrowing cocaine sentencing disparities. In: The Caucus: The Politics and Government Blog of The Times. Web log. New York, NY: The New York Times; August 3, 2010. Available at: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/obama-signs-law-narrowing-cocaine-sentencing-disparities/?scp=2&sq=crack&st=cse. Accessed August 4, 2010.
48. Schweihart L, Montie J, Xiang Z, et al. Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press; 2005.
49. McLaughlin AE, Campbell FA, Pungello EP, et al. Depressive symptoms in young adults: the influences of the early home environment and early educational child care. Child Dev. 2007;78:746-756.
50. Reynolds AJ, Temple JA, Ou SR, et al. Effects of a school-based, early childhood intervention on adult health and well-being: a 19-year follow-up of low-income families. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161:730-739.
51. Costello EJ, Compton SN, Keeler G, et al. Relationships between poverty and psychopathology: a natural experiment. JAMA. 2003;290:2023-2029.
52. Kehrer BH, Wolin CM. Impact of income maintenance on low birth weight: evidence from the Gary Experiment. J Hum Res. 1979;14:434-462.
53. Heckman JJ. Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science. 2006;312:1900-1902. doi: 10.1126/science.1128898.
54. Sherman SG, German D, Cheng Y, et al. The evaluation of the JEWEL project: an innovative economic enhancement and HIV prevention intervention study targeting drug using women involved in prostitution. AIDS Care. 2006;18:1-11.
Keywords:

HIV; structural interventions; United States

© 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.