The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 20 million new cases of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) occur every year in the United States, and nearly 50% of those cases occur among those aged 15 to 24 years.1 In addition to increasing a person's risk for HIV infection, STDs can lead to severe reproductive health complications, such as infertility. In 2010, the inflation-adjusted direct medical costs of STDs (including HIV) were $16.9 billion in the United States.2
As the scope of review articles in this issue demonstrate, STD prevention programs can consider options from an extensive array of linked interventions for STD prevention. Behavioral counseling in STD prevention programs usually follows some other intervention that uncovered an infection or exposure risk (e.g., screening and partner notification). This context differs from behavioral counseling in many primary care settings in that virtually all persons seen by an STD program have high individual-level risk. In this article, we review behavioral counseling interventions in that context: a clinic-based one-on-one intervention with an individual who has been diagnosed as having an STD or who is at least at high risk for infection. Although we will concentrate on behavioral counseling delivered by STD program staff, we will also discuss using partnerships and technical assistance to improve counseling done elsewhere.
In 2001, the Surgeon General issued a call to action to promote sexual health and healthy sexual behavior.3 Strategies mentioned in the report include increasing awareness, implementing and strengthening interventions, and expanding the research base regarding effective sexual health activities. At present, CDC recommends that health care providers promote prevention of STDs for their patients through awareness of risk, protection, and treatment. Specifically, CDC and other national organizations promote an interactive, empathic, and nonjudgmental approach, tailored to the patient's personal risk.4–6 The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a similar approach to counseling for healthy development of sexuality among adolescents, albeit with more focus on delaying or reducing sexual activity.7 Finally, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends high-intensity behavioral counseling for adolescents and adults at risk for STDs.8
Constraints on Behavioral Counseling in Clinical Settings
Rates of repeat infections in STD clinics and of incident STD infections in HIV care settings illustrate that there is a potential benefit for behavioral counseling in these and similar settings serving high-risk populations.9,10 There are, however, 3 substantial constraints to consider with respect to behavioral counseling clinical settings, especially busy STD clinic settings. First are the closely related issues of time and cost. Clinicians consistently report that time constraints are the central barrier to taking sexual histories and providing STD/HIV education or counseling during a patient visit. High-intensity behavioral counseling, the most consistently supported version of this intervention, is defined as greater than 2 hours of contact time with recipients.8 This is a commitment that would seem to be largely untenable in most STD clinics.
Second, little is known about the balance of adaptation and fidelity. That is, behavioral interventions may need to be altered based on specific populations and settings seen in STD clinics and related settings, but some core elements in almost any intervention need to be retained. Programs may be able to be retained in full for specific populations within certain settings, but it is plausible that the adaptation most effective for a given program will depend on key characteristics of both the (1) intervention itself and the (2) specific needs of the setting and/or population of interest.
Given the challenges of time, cost, and adaptation, the goal of this review is to provide an overview of brief behavioral interventions that could be conducted in 1 or 2 short sessions (≤30 minutes per session, or about 60 minutes of total contact time). A review of effective and brief 1 to 2 session behavioral counseling interventions will allow for the identification of core components within the interventions, while detailing setting and population specifics. By understanding common core elements, the aim of the review is to shed light on both how and why specific behavioral counseling interventions are effective, and under which conditions such studies may be replicated. We aim to make this review relevant for the field and specifically for practices and programs that may want to integrate a behavioral counseling into their services, to prevent STD.
We reviewed existing review articles published since 2000 that focused on behavioral counseling interventions. We reviewed each review article's citations and included them in the present review if all of the following criteria were met: (1) the interventions comprised 1 to 2 sessions at 20 to 30 minutes each or 60 minutes of total contact time; (2) they were one-on-one face-to-face sessions (no groups, no videos); (3) settings must be within health centers or other clinics; (4) STD outcomes available, even if not necessarily biomarkers; (5) intervention based in the United States; (6) peer-reviewed published work; and (7) must have a control or treatment as usual group. We did not constrain eligibility to counseling conducted in STD clinics because some primary care settings serve similar populations for similar purposes (sexual health care) under similar conditions.
We examined 91 articles from 6 reviews8,11–15 published between 2006 and 2014: 21 (23.1%) appeared in more than 1 review. One review was the basis for Community Guide to Preventive Services recommendations for men who have sex with men (MSM),13 and 2 were bases for USPSTF behavioral counseling recommendations.8,14 Thirteen of the 91 peer-reviewed articles (representing 11 studies) met all 7 of the above listed criteria and were included in the review.16–28 These articles are abstracted in Table 1. They covered 22,947 participants from 14 to 45 years of age, in a variety of clinical settings (7/11 studies included STD clinics). Where race, sexual orientation, and sex were reported, African Americans and heterosexual persons were most likely to be a majority or plurality, but participants were drawn from across the spectrum of these constructs. More studies enrolled only women than only men, but overall proportions by sex were close to even. Follow-up rates, where given, were typically greater than 70%.
Of the 13 articles included in Table 1, 4 found statistically significant reductions in STD at follow-up in the behavioral counseling group compared with the control group.18,21,24,26 A fifth study19 reported reduced signs of STD infection (6.8% vs. 0, P < 0.05) in the intervention group at 9 months postintervention. The remaining 8 studies measured and found no differences between the intervention and control groups in STD infection (gonorrhea, chlamydial infection, HIV, except for bacterial vaginosis in one study27). In some circumstances, infections in the intervention and control groups both declined over the course of the studies.25
The 5 studies with significant intervention effects on STD rates had similar characteristics to the other 8 studies in most respects. Studies in both categories took place in STD and other clinic settings, used mostly follow-up periods of 6 months or greater (9/13 studies), and addressed variation in age, sex, and sexual orientation. Seven of 10 studies measuring behavior changes found at least 1 significant behavior change by condition, although this includes 2 studies that had inconsistent findings by either the behavior measured or the follow-up period. Moreover, there was greater consistency for behavior change effects among the studies with significant STD effects (5/5 vs. 2/5). Five studies (6 articles) had active control groups: none of these studies were efficacious, compared with 5 of 6 studies (7 articles) with passive controls.
Crosby et al.26 used a medical-records chart review to assess the study's primary outcome of STD acquisition. Jemmott et al.24 examined STD rates via specimens collected and analyzed in the hospital-based laboratory. Kamb et al.18 examined incident STDs via laboratory tests, including HIV. Bolu et al.21 conducted a secondary analysis of the RESPECT data of Kamb et al.; thus, the same outcome measures were assessed. Effect sizes were small to moderate in magnitude, and certainly meaningful in practical terms (i.e., Cohen d = 0.20 in 1 study; odds ratios of approximately 0.50 in 2 others).
For studies with positive findings on STD at follow-up, outcomes such as proportion of sex acts with a condom or amount of sex without condoms favored the intervention groups. Boekeloo et al.19 found protective intervention effects on condom use at 3 months, but not at 9 months. In terms of behavioral self-reported outcomes, Crosby et al.26 measured condom use during the last act of penetrative sex, number of sexual partners in the past 3 months, and proficiency of using condoms as measured via direct observation on a life-sized rubber penile model. Jemmott et al.24 investigated the self-reported proportion of protected sexual intercourse, frequency of unprotected sexual intercourse, and condom use during most recent intercourse. Kamb et al.18 and Bolu et al.21 examined the behavioral outcomes of condom use with vaginal sex, number of sex partners, risks of their sex partners, participants' and partners' condom use beliefs, intentions, attitudes, and perceived norms regarding the consistent use of condoms.
Two studies produced antagonistic effects for male subsets of participants. One follow-up to Project RESPECT that tested a booster session and rapid test found no overall increase in STD rates at follow-up, but did find higher rates at 12 months among men receiving rapid testing (risk ratio [RR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–1.70).22 In 2013, another randomized controlled trial (RCT) randomized participants to receive either (1) rapid HIV testing with brief patient-centered risk reduction counseling (Rapid RESPECT) or (2) rapid HIV testing with information only.28 This study found no differences on STD at follow-up overall, or among heterosexual men or women. However, the study found an increased risk of STDs at 6 months among MSM receiving counseling (RR, 1.41; 98.3% CI, 1.05–1.90 [the unusual CI corrects for multiple comparisons]).
Target Populations and Follow-up
The participants in efficacious short behavioral counseling interventions were at high risk for acquiring new STD, either through design or empirically. Jemmott et al.24 sampled African American women aged 18 to 45 years seeking care at an outpatient women's clinic; 20% tested positive for at least 1 STD (empirically a high-risk population). Participants of Crosby et al.26 were African American heterosexual men aged 18 to 29 years who were newly diagnosed as having an STD at a publicly funded STD clinic (high risk through design). Kamb et al.18 sampled HIV-negative heterosexual men and women 14 years and older; approximately one-third reported a previous STD at enrollment. Bolu et al.21 used the same sample of participants as Kamb et al., but looked specifically at the subpopulation which reported a history of intravenous drug use, history of exchanging sex for money or drugs, an STD diagnosis at enrollment, or a previous HIV test at enrollment. Boekeloo et al.19 sampled young adolescents (12–15 years); these were sexually active and thus at high risk by definition at those ages.
Three of the 5 studies18,21,24 examined outcomes after a 12-month follow-up period, the longest time frame examined in any of the investigations. Boekeloo et al.19 went to 9 months; Crosby et al.26 reviewed STD outcomes at 6 months and behaviors at 3 months postintervention. The remaining 8 studies, however, also used follow-up times longer than 6 months. The shortest follow-up was 2 months in a brief counseling study in an adolescent health clinic.16
Facilitator Characteristics and Costs
Crosby et al.26 used lay health advisors to administer the intervention, with the overarching conceptualization that the most effective facilitators are those from the community, most like those for whom the intervention is intended. Specifically, Crosby and colleagues recruited a young African American man who grew up and resided in the targeted community. Jemmott et al.24 prioritized similar factors and selected African American women from the study catchment area. However, the facilitators hired were nurses with a median of 14 years' nursing experience and a 10 years' experience working with African American women. Kamb et al.18 and Bolu et al.21 do not discuss their facilitator characteristics within their studies, but do note that behavioral counseling was conducted with a trained HIV counselor or clinician.
Cost data were not identified explicitly in most studies. One study estimated intervention counseling costs at $8 ($12 in 2015 dollars) over control conditions, which they noted would be cost-saving at preventing 145 HIV infections per 241,000 people counseled (<0.1% prevalence). Another study provided the average costs (2010 dollars) per patient counseled in intervention and control arms: $56 and $23, respectively ($60 and $25 in 2015 dollars).28 We also estimated the resources required to operate the intervention in terms of staffing and visit context. All studies except one27 recruited participants in the context of an existing clinic visit for care. Nine studies delivered the intervention through existing staff (2 physicians, 2 nurses, 5 counselors), 2 used research staff, and 1 other used a lay health advisor model.
Intervention Theory and Other Key Elements
In a 20-minute 1-time intervention, Jemmott et al.24 used social cognitive theory as the underpinnings for Sister-to-Sister and strove to present behavioral counseling in a culturally sensitive and gender-appropriate frame, delivered over the course of a routine medical visit. Prioritizing empowering and educating woman through the teaching of behavioral skills, this intervention was designed to increase condom use skills, including practice with an anatomical model. The intervention also used role playing as a tactic to increase self-efficacy and negotiation of condom use with partner. Crosby et al.26 prioritized condom education through the Information, Motivation, and Behavioral Skills model.29 The intervention was designed to promote quality, correctness, and consistency of condom use. The facilitators emphasized condom skill acquisition and initiating condom use in a one-time, 45- to 50-minute session. RESPECT18,21 was an individual-level, client-focused intervention, consisting of 2 brief, 20-minute interactive counseling sessions—the 2-session version was as efficacious as the 4-session version. Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action and Social Cognitive Theory,30,31 the provider determined what behaviors place the client at increased risk and used a “teachable moment” to increase the client's concern about his/her personal risk and develop a risk reduction strategy. This early version of RESPECT used a standard HIV test, necessitating days between the initial discussion and follow-up. Most studies, whether efficacious or not, were based on principles of social cognitive theory.
We reviewed studies to find interventions that were both efficacious and feasible in time-constrained clinical settings, delivered principally by existing staff under existing patient care conditions. Thus, we reviewed interventions that could be implemented within 60 minutes of total contact time in a one-on-one interaction within a clinic setting. We found 13 analyses that fit our criteria, with 5 showing evidence of efficacy with respect to STD infection rates at follow-up. There was more consistency with respect to behavior change, and behavior changes were associated with lower STD incidence in all 5 studies showing an effect on STD at follow-up. This low proportion of efficacious studies, however, is somewhat at odds with other reviews, and we emphasize that the discussion pertains to a select group of interventions, not to all behavioral counseling. In the remainder of this discussion, we focus upon key factors of behavioral counseling interventions, consider approaches that may improve feasibility, and comment on potential future action.
Key Factors in Short Behavioral Individualized Counseling
In some respects, the sample characteristics of interventions varied little according to the success of the intervention. The populations were typically high risk in comparison with the general population in that most either were STD infected or had been previously diagnosed as having STD (but not HIV). They were not especially high risk compared with STD clinic attendees in general. More salient is that nearly all participants were heterosexual males and females (including adolescents) and that effects were generally strongest for these populations. Gay, bisexual, and other MSM and women who have sex with women were largely absent from the studies, appearing in 4 of 13.22–24,27 Moreover, intervention STD effects were typically weaker for MSM, with one study even producing an antagonistic effect on incidence.28 Tailoring and personalized counseling approaches seemed to be a necessary condition, but most effective if matched with practical skills around condom use (the study by Carey et al.25 was the principal exception to this rule). Matching the facilitator at least by race and sex seemed consistently helpful, although the effect of this moderator was not empirically measured. Finally, the composition of control groups should not be overlooked: RCTs with active controls were far less likely to be efficacious (sometimes active controls were chosen for good reason because that condition represented the standard of care). If we restrict conclusions to studies with minimal interventions in control groups, conclusions are far more favorable to behavioral counseling.
In sum, a short behavioral counseling intervention for heterosexual clinic patients with known risk behaviors, perhaps facilitated by those who can establish ready rapport with clients through similarity24,26 or training (RESPECT studies),18,21 and using a behavioral skills approach and interactive and personalized discussions on how to decrease risk, has the best potential to result in sexual risk reduction and decreased rates of reinfection. Some of these points are reflected in other areas of STD prevention in program settings. For example, a 2012 review of interventions with African American men named male facilitators as reinforcers of effectiveness,32 and the value of interactive counseling has been established with partner notification across several studies.33
Moving Forward With Behavioral Counseling
The first consideration is cost, whether measured directly or in terms of resource allocation. Most efficacious studies used existing staff and visits, although one required hiring a lay health advisor. Although these conditions minimize hiring and outreach costs, the interventions still require training and take time. If we take the $60 per session estimated from Project AWARE as a reasonable metric for a 2015 counseling session, a program has to decide whether this money is best spent averting infections through counseling, or seeking infections through, say, expanded screening. This, in turn, is partly dependent on STD/HIV prevalence in the targeted population. Efficacious interventions were spread across clinical settings, so community prevalence around intervention venues could vary.
Three related logistic considerations relevant to STD programs seem to play a significant role in counseling effectiveness: contact time, repeat contact, and testing circumstances. Contact time, which is the indicator the USPSTF uses for “intensity,” allows for more skills practice and interaction. These are theoretically based and empirically confirmed features of successful counseling across numerous topic areas.34 The successful interventions reviewed here show that these components can be delivered in 60 minutes or fewer, and that to do so requires no particular disciplinary specialty. Delivery, however, does require specialized training and the ability to move beyond didactic instruction.
The second issue is repeat contact (e.g., multiple sessions). Repeat contact provides an opportunity to reinforce content and commitment, maintain interaction and rapport, and adjust behavior change plans—in the short term. Project RESPECT's 2 sessions were delivered over a 7- to 10-day period; adding a booster session 6 months later had no effect in a later RCT.22 An STD program that has the capacity to follow up with patients or that does so for purposes like reinterviews (i.e., if partner notification is involved) may use such opportunities to implement counseling. Retesting is another opportunity, but this typically occurs more than 10 days after initial treatment.
Third, there is the issue of HIV testing, which has changed over the period of this review. Project RESPECT was conducted before the advent of rapid HIV testing and did not include MSM in its initial RCT18; MSM account for nearly two-thirds of new HIV infections in the United States. Later studies based on RESPECT have shown either no differences for MSM22,23 or antagonistic effects on STD incidence.28
A case for targeting behavioral interventions is thus made more complex as one of the most vulnerable populations, MSM, seem to receive the least benefit in terms of STD incidence. We hypothesize that many MSM in STD clinics know they are at high risk, know generally why this is so (a combination of behaviors, community prevalence, and effects of stigma), and have been at risk for some time. Clinically based behavioral counseling is a difficult avenue for successful intervention under these circumstances, especially as the magnitude of change required to affect incidence increases with high community prevalence. The evidence suggests that many of these factors also apply to heterosexual men in STD clinics, although we found evidence that social cognitive interventions that used lay counselors who are representative of the affected communities remain effective for heterosexual men.26
Moreover, the bulk of counseling interventions and the recommendations on which they are based are specific to a subset of prevention behaviors—condom use, reductions in numbers of partners, and, less often, partner selection criteria (e.g., seroadaptative choices). These are not necessarily attractive options as intervention targets. More promising, however, is the advent of preexposure prophylaxis35; a different behavioral outcome from those in this review, but certainly emerging as a component of prevention program action with substantial behavioral counseling ramifications. Interestingly, a recent pilot of doxycycline prophylaxis for HIV-infected MSM engaging in risky sexual behavior showed promise for reducing STD among this select population,36 although there remain significant practical and ethical considerations.37
To augment the efficacy of behavioral counseling interventions, health departments may consider integrating behavioral counseling with other prevention efforts. Integration serves multiple purposes and thereby increases cost efficiency as well as overall prevention effectiveness. For example, a second behavioral counseling session combined with a retest reminder and check on partner treatment is testable in many program settings in an experimental or a quality improvement framework. There is more reason for research and development: the reasons why a select number of such interventions were shown to be effective bears further investigation. Finally, there are behavioral counseling examples that diverge from sexual behavior as a topic, but that still affect STD at follow-up. For one example, an evaluation of counseling to prevent alcohol-exposed pregnancies in 2 clinics had effects on sexual behavior, although it did not measure STD.38
Finally, there is a potential role for STD programs in indirect action on behavioral counseling. Programs may take a role in providing guidance or technical assistance for STD prevention counseling in settings outside STD clinics. Many of the people for whom interventions seemed most efficacious are seen outside STD clinic settings. CDC's Division of STD Prevention is in the process of trying to fill this gap by developing feasible and sustainable behavioral counseling interventions that can fit within health care settings such as community health centers with minimal adjustments to current practice. The Division of STD Prevention is also attempting to develop a successful mechanism by which behavioral counseling meets reimbursement requirements, thus furthering the opportunity for sustainable behavioral counseling.
Short behavioral counseling interventions are appropriate for many STD clinic populations and for primary care settings serving vulnerable populations (e.g., community health centers in high-prevalence areas). They require, however, attention and resources to sustain and may be most efficiently managed if they are combined with other prevention activities. Such activities require research or evaluation, as those combinations have not been clearly analyzed to date—some combinations are visible in studies, but not formally evaluated. High-risk MSM do not seem to benefit from behavioral counseling as currently construed. That noted, behavioral counseling topics extend beyond condom use and numbers of partners, so there is clearly scope for continued efforts to find the best interventions to use for reducing STD incidence.
1. Satterwhite CL, Torrone E, Meites E, et al. Sexually transmitted infections among US women and men: Prevalence and incidence estimates, 2008. Sex Transm Dis 2013; 40: 187–193.
2. Chesson HW, Gift TL, Owusu-Edusei K Jr, et al. A brief review of the estimated economic burden of sexually transmitted diseases in the United States: Inflation-adjusted updates of previously published cost studies. Sex Transm Dis 2011; 38: 889–891.
3. US Public Health Service. The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2001.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A Guide to Taking a Sexual History. Atlanta: Department of Health and Human Services; 2008.
5. Brook G, Bacon L, Evans C, et al. 2013 UK national guideline for consultations requiring sexual history taking. Clinical Effectiveness Group British Association for Sexual Health and HIV. Int J STD AIDS 2014; 25: 391–404.
6. Rogstad KE, Ahmed-Jushuf IH, Robinson AJ, et al. Standards for comprehensive sexual health services for young people under 25 years. Int J STD AIDS 2002; 13: 420–424.
8. O'Connor EA, Lin JS, Burda BU, et al. Behavioral sexual risk-reduction counseling in primary care to prevent sexually transmitted infections: A systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2014; 161: 874–883.
9. Mayer KH, Bush T, Henry K, et al. Ongoing sexually transmitted disease acquisition and risk-taking behavior among US HIV-infected patients in primary care: Implications for prevention interventions. Sex Transm Dis 2012; 39: 1–7.
10. Evans C, Das C, Kinghorn G. A retrospective study of recurrent chlamydia infection in men and women: Is there a role for targeted screening for those at risk? Int J STD AIDS 2009; 20: 188–192.
11. Lyles CM, Kay LS, Crepaz N, et al. Best-evidence interventions: Findings from a systematic review of HIV behavioral interventions for US populations at high risk, 2000–2004. Am J Public Health 2007; 97: 133–143.
12. Herbst JH, Kay LS, Passin WF, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioral interventions to reduce HIV risk behaviors of Hispanics in the United States and Puerto Rico. AIDS Behav 2007; 11: 25–47.
13. Herbst JH, Beeker C, Mathew A, et al. The effectiveness of individual-, group-, and community-level HIV behavioral risk-reduction interventions for adult men who have sex with men: A systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2007; 32 (suppl 4): S38–S67.
14. Lin JS, Whitlock E, O'Connor E, et al. Behavioral counseling to prevent sexually transmitted infections: A systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 497–508.
15. Eaton LA, Huedo-Medina TB, Kalichman SC, et al. Meta-analysis of single-session behavioral interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: Implications for bundling prevention packages. Am J Public Health 2012; 102: e34–e44. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300968.
16. Mansfield CJ, Conroy ME, Emans SJ, et al. A pilot study of AIDS education and counseling of high-risk adolescents in an office setting. J Adolesc Health 1993; 14: 115–119.
17. Orr DP, Langefeld CD, Katz BP, et al. Behavioral intervention to increase condom use among high-risk female adolescents. J Pediatr 1996; 128: 288–295.
18. Kamb ML, Fishbein M, Douglas JM Jr, et al. Efficacy of risk-reduction counseling to prevent human immunodeficiency virus and sexually transmitted diseases: A randomized controlled trial. Project RESPECT Study Group. JAMA 1998; 280: 1161–1167.
19. Boekeloo BO, Schamus LA, Simmens SJ, et al. A STD/HIV prevention trial among adolescents in managed care. Pediatrics 1999; 103: 107–115.
20. Gollub EL, French P, Loundou A, et al. A randomized trial of hierarchical counseling in a short, clinic-based intervention to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases in women. AIDS 2000; 14: 1249–1255.
21. Bolu OO, Lindsey C, Kamb ML, et al. Is HIV/sexually transmitted disease prevention counseling effective among vulnerable populations? A subset analysis of data collected for a randomized, controlled trial evaluating counseling efficacy (Project RESPECT). Sex Transm Dis 2004; 31: 469–474.
22. Metcalf CA, Malotte CK, Douglas JM Jr, et al. Efficacy of a booster counseling session 6 months after HIV testing and counseling: A randomized, controlled trial (RESPECT-2). Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32: 123–129.
23. Metcalf CA, Douglas JM Jr, Malotte CK, et al. Relative efficacy of prevention counseling with rapid and standard HIV testing: A randomized, controlled trial (RESPECT-2). Sex Transm Dis 2005; 32: 130–138.
24. Jemmott LS, Jemmott JB 3rd, O'Leary A. Effects on sexual risk behavior and STD rate of brief HIV/STD prevention interventions for African American women in primary care settings. Am J Public Health 2007; 97: 1034–1040.
25. Carey MP, Senn TE, Vanable PA, et al. Brief and intensive behavioral interventions to promote sexual risk reduction among STD clinic patients: Results from a randomized controlled trial. AIDS Behav 2010; 14: 504–517.
26. Crosby R, DiClemente RJ, Charnigo R, et al. A brief, clinic-based, safer sex intervention for heterosexual African American men newly diagnosed with an STD: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Public Health 2009; 99 (suppl 1): S96–S103.
27. Marrazzo JM, Thomas KK, Ringwood K. A behavioural intervention to reduce persistence of bacterial vaginosis among women who report sex with women: Results of a randomised trial. Sex Transm Infect 2011; 87: 399–405.
28. Metsch LR, Feaster DJ, Gooden L, et al. Effect of risk-reduction counseling with rapid HIV testing on risk of acquiring sexually transmitted infections: The AWARE randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2013; 310: 1701–1710.
29. Fisher JD, Fisher WA. Changing AIDS-risk behavior. Psychol Bull 1992; 111: 455–474.
30. Albarracín D, Johnson BT, Fishbein M, et al. Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 2001; 127: 142–161.
31. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986.
32. Henny KD, Crepaz N, Lyles CM, et al. Efficacy of HIV/STI behavioral interventions for heterosexual African American men in the United States: A meta-analysis. AIDS Behav 2012; 16: 1092–1114.
33. Trelle S, Shang A, Nartey L, Cassell JA, Low N. Improved effectiveness of partner notification for patients with sexually transmitted infections: Systematic review. BMJ 2007; 334: 354. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39079.460741.7C.
34. Albarracín D, Gillette JC, Earl AN, et al. A test of major assumptions about behavior change: A comprehensive look at the effects of passive and active HIV-prevention interventions since the beginning of the epidemic. Psychol Bull 2005; 131: 856–897.
35. Krakower DS, Jain S, Mayer KH. Antiretrovirals for primary HIV prevention: The current status of pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2015; 12: 127–138.
36. Bolan RK, Beymer MR, Weiss RE, et al. Doxycycline prophylaxis to reduce incident syphilis among HIV-infected men who have sex with men who continue to engage in high-risk sex: A randomized, controlled pilot study. Sex Transm Dis 2015; 42: 98–103.
37. Golden MR, Handsfield HH. Preexposure prophylaxis to prevent bacterial sexually transmitted infections in men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Dis 2015; 42: 104–106.
38. Hutton HE, Chander G, Green PP, et al. A novel integration effort to reduce the risk for alcohol-exposed pregnancy among women attending urban STD clinics. Public Health Rep 2014; 129 (suppl 1): 56–62.