Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: AIDS Educ Prev. 2012 Jun;24(3):193–205. doi: 10.1521/aeap.2012.24.3.193

RESILIENCE, SYNDEMIC FACTORS, AND SEROSORTING BEHAVIORS AMONG HIV-POSITIVE AND HIV-NEGATIVE SUBSTANCE-USING MSM

Steven P Kurtz 1, Mance E Buttram 2, Hilary L Surratt 3, Ronald D Stall 4
PMCID: PMC3480663  NIHMSID: NIHMS412051  PMID: 22676460

Abstract

Serosorting is commonly employed by MSM to reduce HIV risk. We hypothesize that MSM perceive serosorting to be effective, and that serosorting is predicted by resilience and inversely related to syndemic characteristics. Surveys included 504 substance-using MSM. Logistic regression models examined syndemic and resilience predictors of serosorting, separately by serostatus. For HIV-positive men, positive coping behaviors (P = .015) and coping self-efficacy (P = .014) predicted higher odds, and cognitive escape behaviors (P = .003) lower odds, of serosorting. For HIV-negative men, social engagement (P = .03) and coping self-efficacy (P = .01) predicted higher odds, and severe mental distress (P = .001), victimization history (P = .007) and cognitive escape behaviors (P = .006) lower odds, of serosorting. HIV-negative serosorters reported lower perceptions of risk for infection than non-serosorters (P < .000). Although high risk HIV-negative men may perceive serosorting to be effective, their high rates of UAI and partner change render this an ineffective risk reduction approach. Relevant public health messages are urgently needed.

The disproportionate impact of HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM) has been well documented over the past three decades (Wolitski, Valiserri, & Stall 2008). Current research among urban MSM emphasizes syndemic theory as a framework for understanding the production of health disparities (Bruce, Harper, & Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS, 2011; Stall, Friedman, & Catania, 2008). Syndemic theory views adverse health conditions as fundamentally interconnected; that is, “two or more afflictions, interacting synergistically, contributing to an excess burden of disease” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). In particular, research has employed a syndemic approach to understand the conditions driving the HIV epidemic among MSM (Stall et al., 2003; Mustanski, Garofalo, Herrick, & Donenberg, 2007).

As compared to men in the general population, health disparities among MSM are evidenced in higher rates of depression and other mental health problems, victimization, and substance dependence (Cochran & Mays 2008) and sexual compulsivity (Parsons, Grov, & Golub, 2011). Links between mental distress, substance use and sexual risk behaviors are further evidenced by the frequent use of sex and drugs for cognitive escape purposes (Alvy et al., 2011). Inadequate or negative coping skills are also prevalent in this population (Martin & Alessi, 2010).

RESILIENCE

Enhancing resilience among MSM may be a productive approach for alleviating these health disparities (Stall et al., 2008). In connection with MSM, resilience has been defined as a process of adaptation and readjustment that occurs despite multiple personal and social losses (Rabkin, Remien, Katoff, & Williams, 1993), and may involve adaptations in psychological, social and/or behavioral characteristics. In the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) literature, resilience has been largely operationalized by measures of coping skills or strategies (Siegel & Meyer, 1999), stress-related growth (Bonet, Wells, & Parsons, 2007) and social support (Gwadz et al., 2006).

The resilience literature on MSM is scant (De Santis, 2008), but suggests that, despite syndemic health disparities, most MSM exhibit resilience (Herrick et al., 2011). This is evidenced in the areas of smoking cessation and recovery (Greenwood et al., 2005), avoiding recreational drug use or addiction despite its prevalence in the urban MSM community (Mills et al., 2004; Stall et al., 2001), and participation in the gay rights movement over the past 40 years (Herrick, 2011). These studies evidence health promotion, altruism, and social justice, which are all characteristics of resilience (Kent & Davis, 2010), and taken together, this research would appear to indicate an inclination for behavioral resilience among MSM.

SEROADAPTATION

Seroadaptation can be viewed as a functional response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic (McConnell, Bragg, Shiboski, & Grant, 2010) due to widespread knowledge of HIV transmission risk in MSM communities (Van de Ven et al., 2002). Seroadaptation includes a range of non-condom-based HIV sexual risk reduction strategies, such as strategic positioning (choosing sex role in anal intercourse based on partners’ serostatus) and serosorting (selecting partners with concordant serostatus; Philip, Yu, Donnell, Vittinghoff, & Buchbinder, 2010). It has been suggested that seroadaptation is the prevailing form of sexual risk management among some MSM (Snowden, Raymond, & McFarland, 2009). Extensive seroadaptation, when combined with other safer sex practices such as abstinence and condom use, has been estimated to reduce HIV transmission by as much as 98% (McConnell et al., 2010). Such adaptive behavioral responses may constitute evidence of resilience by MSM.

Serosorting is one of the most common seroadaptation practices employed by MSM to decrease HIV risk (Truong et al., 2006; Parsons et al., 2005). This strategy is used by HIV-positive MSM to avoid stigma, rejection, or confrontation related to serostatus disclosure (Rosser et al., 2010); to avoid spreading the virus to others (O’Dell, Rosser, Miner, & Jacoby, 2008); and because of the criminalization of HIV transmission (O’Dell et al., 2008). HIV-negative MSM also utilize serosorting as a means of decreasing HIV infection risk (McFarland et al., 2012).

Serosorting has demonstrated protective effects in comparison to discordant unprotected anal intercourse (UAI; Golden, Stekler, Hughes, & Wood, 2008), and appears to have reduced HIV transmission among MSM in San Francisco (McConnell et al., 2010). Recent studies have indicated high levels of acceptability and adherence to serosorting in comparison to other safer sex practices among HIV-negative MSM (McFarland et al., 2012), leading some community organizations to embrace serosorting as a protective measure to be encouraged (Eaton et al., 2007). Nevertheless, proponents acknowledge that the effectiveness of serosorting for reducing HIV transmission requires repeated and frequent HIV testing (McConnell et al., 2010; Philip, 2010), a low proportion of undiagnosed infection (McFarland et al., 2012), substantial knowledge of HIV transmission risk factors (McConnell et al., 2010), and increased disclosure and honesty among sexual partners (McFarland et al., 2012; Parsons et al.; 2006).

If serosorting is perceived by MSM to be effective in reducing HIV risks, then both syndemic and resilience theories would appear to provide cogent avenues for identifying those men most likely to incorporate the behavior. In this paper, we describe differences in substance use, sexual risk behaviors, syndemic symptoms, and resilience measures between high risk substance-using HIV-positive and HIV-negative MSM. We then examine serosorting as an expression of behavioral resilience amidst an array of syndemic health disparities, and describe the implications of our findings for serosorting as a risk reduction strategy.

METHODS

Data are drawn from baseline assessments of 504 MSM participating in an ongoing risk reduction intervention trial being conducted in South Florida. South Florida (Miami/Ft. Lauderdale) is a well-known migration destination for MSM, with the second highest proportion of same-sex households among large cities in the nation (Smith & Gates, 2001). Miami reports the highest AIDS and HIV incidence rates in the U.S. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009), and almost half (45%) of HIV-positive MSM in a recent Miami study were unaware of their infection (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005).

The study is a randomized clinical trial testing the efficacy of a four-session small group discussion intervention compared to a single-session individual counseling condition, both of which were based on theories of resilience and psychological empowerment (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005; Zimmerman, 1995). Participants were recruited between November 2008 and October 2010 through multiple methods, including direct outreach, participant referral, and internet and print media. Eligible men were between the ages of 18 and 55; reported recent (past 90 days) UAI with a nonmonogamous partner(s); and met one or more of three substance use inclusion criteria: binge drinking (5 or more drinks) or drug use, excluding marijuana, at least three times, or marijuana use at least 20 days, in the past month. All interviews were conducted in private offices using computer-assisted face-to-face interviews. Clients received HIV and drug education literature, condoms, and a $50 stipend upon completion of the baseline interview, which lasted about two hours. Research protocols were approved by the University of Delaware’s (predecessor institution) and Nova Southeastern University’s Institutional Review Boards. This report excludes 11 study participants whose HIV status was indeterminate (i.e., reported never testing or receiving inconclusive results).

MEASURES

Substance use measures included past 90 day frequency of use of each substance, including the non-medical use of prescription medications. Sexual behavior measures included counts of past 90 day receptive and insertive anal intercourse events, with or without substance use, with or without a condom, with a casual or primary partner, and with a seroconcordant, serodiscordant, or unknown serostatus partner. Participant HIV status was assessed by self report, and seropositivity was verified with a notice of diagnosis or antiretroviral prescription. Sexual partner serostatus was assessed by the questions, “in the past 3 months, how many times did you have receptive/insertive anal sex without a condom when you knew your partner was HIV-positive /HIV- negative/unknown status?).” We defined serosorting as zero occasions of UAI with serodiscordant or unknown serostatus partners in the past 90 days.

Syndemic Symptoms

The General Mental Distress Scale (GMDS) is comprised of past year DSM-IVR symptom counts for depression (9 items), anxiety (12 items), and somatic disorders (4 items). This scale is reducible to classifications indicating clinical significance (subclinical, moderate and severe; Dennis, 2002) and was further dichotomized in the analyses presented here into severe and not severe. Alpha reliability coefficients for the depression, anxiety, and somaticism subscales in this study were 0.822, 0.829, and 0.706, respectively.

Substance dependence was assessed by the endorsement of three or more of seven DSM-IVR criteria in the past year (e.g., needing more drug to get the same effect, experiencing withdrawal symptoms, being unable to quit or cut down).

The Cognitive Escape Scale (Alvy et al., 2011) is a seven-item (e.g., when I am drunk or high, I will do anything with almost any guy) Likert-type scale with four response choices (strongly agree to strongly disagree) that assesses the use of alcohol and/or drugs together with sex to escape cognitive awareness of behavioral norms related to HIV transmission risk (McKirnan, Vanable, Ostrow, & Hope, 2001). The measure was included here because it directly assesses the link between substance use and sexual risk, and has also been shown to mediate the relationship between the co-occurring psychosocial health problems of depression and sexual risk among MSM (Alvy et al., 2011). The alpha reliability coefficient in this study was 0.701. For analysis, we dichotomized the scale at the 75th percentile, which was a score of 22 with a range of 7 to 28 (mean = 18.45; SD = 4.80). This transformation did not change the significance of the measure in regression analyses, but was undertaken to facilitate interpretability of the results.

Victimization was assessed by affirmative responses to the following events: being attacked with a weapon or being beaten so as to cause bruises, cuts, or broken bones (physical abuse); being forced to participate in sexual acts against one’s will (sexual abuse); or being made to feel very bad about oneself or one’s life (emotional abuse). For analysis, we used a summary measure: any lifetime abuse vs. no abuse.

Resilience

The Brief COPE Scale (Carver, 1997) assesses respondents’ recent coping behaviors when under stress, rated on a four-point scale from “I’ve been doing this a lot” to “I haven’t been doing this at all.” We first dichotomized the responses such that 1 = a lot/moderately and 0 = a little/not at all. We then reduced the 11-item instrument to ten items, combining five measures of positive coping behaviors (e.g., taking action, getting help and advice) and five measures of negative coping behaviors (e.g., denial, substance use) into separate subscales with values ranging from 0 to 5. Alpha reliability coefficients for the positive and negative coping subscales were 0.718 and 0.722, respectively.

The Coping Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES, reduced form; Chesney, Neilands, Chambers, Taylor, & Folkman, 2006) consists of 13 items that measure the level of confidence someone has in performing coping behaviors under stress, rated on a ten-point scale from certain can do to cannot do at all. Three distinct factors are included: self-efficacy for problem-focused coping, stopping unpleasant thoughts, and getting social support. Psychometric tests have shown high levels of internal consistency and test-retest reliability among HIV-positive MSM (Chesney et al., 2006). The alpha reliability coefficient in this study was 0.908. For analysis, we dichotomized the scale at the 75th percentile, which was a score of 104 with a range of 25 to 130 (mean = 88.91; SD = 22.54). This transformation did not change the significance of the measure in regression analyses, but was undertaken to facilitate the interpretability of the results.

Given the importance of diverse and supportive social networks to the concept of resilience (Dolan, 2011), the Social Engagement Scale assessed, by past 90 day event counts, respondents’ participation in a variety of social settings (e.g., classes, volunteering, public and/or organizational meetings, getting together with friends and relatives, sports. For analysis, we dichotomized the sum of these counts at the 75th percentile, with those above that level defined as having high social engagement. This value was 51 total social engagement events in the past 90 days, with a range of 0 to 160 (mean = 36.5; SD = 27.82).

DATA ANALYSES

Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics v. 19. Given that serosorting behaviors have different motivations and meanings for HIV-positive and HIV-negative men (van Kesteren, Hospers, & Gerjo, 2007), separate regression models were constructed by serostatus. Bivariate logistic regression models were constructed to predict 100% serosorting behavior in the past 90 days by syndemic and resilience factors. Those measures showing significant associations in the bivariate models were included in multivariate logistic regression models. Hosmer and Lemeshow tests confirmed that the predictors were a good fit for each model (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

RESULTS

Demographic, substance use, sexual behavior, and syndemic and resilience characteristics are shown in Table 1 by serostatus. The mean age of the sample was 39.1 (SD = 9.6; range = 18–55), with HIV-positive men about 6 years older, on average, than HIV-negative men (42.07 vs. 36.44, F = 47.261, P < .001). The ethnic diversity of South Florida was represented, including 25.4% Hispanic, 20.6% African American/Caribbean, and 49.4% white non-Hispanic men. Hispanic men were less likely (χ2 = 5.748, P = .017), and Black men more likely (χ = 11.951, P = .001), to report HIV-positive serostatus. About one-third of the sample (32.5%) had the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree or higher education.

TABLE 1.

Baseline Characteristics of Substance-Using MSM by Serostatus N = (504)

Positive (N = 239) Negative (N = 265) Chi-square or F-statistic P
N 47.40% N 52.60%
Demographics
Agea 42.07 −7.95 36.44 −10.14 47.261 < 0.001
Ethnicity:
 Hispanic 49 20.50% 79 29.80% 5.748 0.017
 African American/Caribbean 65 27.20% 39 14.70% 11.951 0.001
 White 115 48.10% 134 50.60% 0.301 0.583
 Other 10 4.20% 13 4.90% 0.488 0.485
Education - 16 years 69 28.90% 95 35.80% 2.788 0.083
Substance use (past 90 days)
 Alcohol (binge drinking) 172 72.00% 239 90.20% 27.73 < 0.001
 Marijuana 161 67.40% 168 63.40% 0.350 0.35
 Poppers 138 57.70% 133 50.20% 2.883 0.09
 Cocaine (powder) 115 48.10% 107 40.40% 3.054 0.081
 Methamphetamine 88 36.80% 43 16.20% 27.705 < 0.001
 Crack cocaine 72 30.10% 30 11.30% 27.529 < 0.001
 Rx sedatives 88 36.80% 84 31.70% 1.466 0.226
 Rx opioids 55 23.00% 71 26.80% 0.958 0.328
Sexual behaviors (past 90 days)
 Anal intercourse partnersa 16.41 −21.49 10.09 −13.79 15.707 < 0.001
 Anal intercourse timesa 34.06 −36.63 31.39 −45.92 0.513 0.474
 UAI timesa 26.08 −34.00 18.82 −33.94 5.740 0.017
 Serosorter 100% of the time 71 29.70% 127 47.90% 17.485 < 0.001
Syndemic factors
 Severe mental distress (past year) 155 64.90% 138 52.10% 8.431 0.004
 DSM-IVR substance dependence 159 66.50% 153 57.70% 4.118 0.042
 Cognitive escapeb 92 38.50% 50 18.90% 23.918 < 0.001
 Victimization history (lifetime) 195 81.60% 209 78.90% 0.585 0.444
 First abuse before age 18 138 57.70% 140 52.80% 1.225 0.268
Resilience measures
 Positive coping behaviorsa 2.74 −1.57 3.02 −1.50 4.336 0.042
 Negative coping behaviorsa 2.16 −1.49 1.77 −1.45 8.825 0.003
 Coping self-efficacyb 50 20.90% 82 30.90% 6.530 0.011
 Social engagementb 47 19.70% 79 29.80% 6.899 0.009
Open in a new tab

Note.

a

Mean (SD).

b

75th percentile.

Binge drinking (more than five drinks at one sitting) was prevalent (81.5%), with majorities also endorsing marijuana (65.3%) and poppers (amyl nitrites; 53.8%). Powder cocaine use was reported by 44%, methamphetamine 26%, and crack cocaine 20.2% of the sample. More than one-third (34.1%) endorsed the misuse of prescription sedatives, and one-quarter prescription opioids. A larger proportion of HIV-negative men (90.2%) than HIV-positive men (72%) reported binge drinking (χ2 = 27.730, P < .001). HIV-positive men were more likely than HIV-negative men to be current users of methamphetamine (36.8% vs. 16.2%, χ2 = 27.705, P < .001) and crack cocaine (30.1% vs. 11.3%, χ2 = 27.529, P < .001).

HIV-positive men reported higher mean levels of UAI occasions (26.08 vs. 18.82, F = 5.74, P = .017), as well as more anal intercourse partners (16.41 vs. 10.09, F = 15.707, P < .001), than HIV-negative men. A greater proportion of HIV-negative men (47.9%) than HIV-positive men (29.7%) reported 100% serosorting in the past 90 days ( χ2 = 17.485, P < .001).

Syndemic factors were prevalent, including severe mental distress (58.1%), substance dependence (61.9%), and victimization history (80.2%). HIV-positive men were generally more likely to report syndemic factors than HIV-negative men, including severe mental distress (64.9% vs. 52.1%; χ2 = 8.431, P = .004), substance dependence (66.5% vs. 57.7%; χ2 = 4.118, P = .042), and high levels of cognitive escape (38.5% vs. 18.9%; χ2 = 23.918, P < .001), but both groups were about equally likely to have been victimized. HIV-negative men scored higher than HIV-positive men on all measures of resilience, including positive coping behaviors (3.02 vs. 2.74; F = 4.336, P = .042), fewer negative coping behaviors (1.77 vs. 2.16; F = 8.825, P = .003), and higher coping self-efficacy (30.9% vs. 20.9%; χ2 = 6.530, P = .011), and social engagement (29.8% vs. 19.7%; χ2 = 6.899, P = .009).

Results of the bivariate logistic regression models predicting serosorting among HIV-positive MSM are shown in Table 2. Men scoring above the 75th percentile on the cognitive escape measure had just .39 times the odds of serosorting compared to HIV-positive men who scored lower on cognitive escape (95% CI = 0.209, 0.729; P = .003). No other syndemic characteristics were significant. In terms of resilience measures, men with high coping self-efficacy scores had more than two times the odds of serosorting compared to men with lower self-efficacy (OR = 2.245; 95% CI = 1.176, 4.284; P = .014). In addition, each additional positive coping behavior endorsed increased the odds of serosorting among HIV-positive men by a factor of 1.256 (95% CI = 1.046, 1.509; P = .015).

TABLE 2.

Bivariate and Multivariate Logistic Regression Models of Predictors of Serosorting Among Positive MSM (N = 239)

Predictor of serosorting P OR 95% CI
BIVARIATE
Syndemic factors
DSM-IVR substance dependence 0.503 0.820 0.458, 1.466
Severe mental distress (past year) 0.544 0.837 0.471, 1.488
Victimization history (lifetime) 0.450 1.333 0.623, 2.814
Cognitive escapea 0.003 0.390 0.209, 0.729
Resilience measures
Coping self-efficacya 0.014 2.245 1.176, 4.284
Social engagementa 0.712 1.138 0.572, 2.265
Negative coping behaviors 0.232 0.891 0.737, 1.077
Positive coping behaviors 0.015 1.256 1.046, 1.509
MULTIVARIATE
Cognitive escapea 0.007 0.418 0.222, 0.786
Coping self-efficacya 0.019 2.034 1.044, 3.904
Positive coping behaviors 0.097 1.175 0.971, 1.421
Open in a new tab

Note.

a

75th percentile.

Results of the multivariate logistic regression model predicting serosorting among HIV-positive men are also shown in Table 2. High cognitive escape remained a syndemic predictor of (non)serosorting behavior (OR = .418, 95% CI = 0.222, 0.786; P = .007). For resilience measures, high coping self-efficacy remained a significant predictor of serosorting (OR = 2.034, 95% CI = 1.044, 3.904; P = .019).

Results of the bivariate logistic regression models predicting serosorting among HIV-negative MSM are shown in Table 3. Three syndemic factors, including severe mental distress (OR = .419, 95% CI = 0.256, 0.687; P = .001), lifetime victimization (OR = .428, 95% CI = 0.233, 0.789; P = .007), and a high cognitive escape (OR = .394, 95% CI = 0.203, 0.764; P = .006) were associated with lower odds of serosorting. Three resilience measures, including high coping self-efficacy (OR = 1.999, 95% CI = 1.177, 3.395; P = .010), social engagement scores (OR = 1.807, 95% CI = 1.061, 3.079; P = .030), and fewer negative coping behaviors (OR = .813, 95% CI = 0.685, 0.964; P = .017) were associated with higher odds of serosorting.

TABLE 3.

Bivariate and Multivariate Logistic Regression Models of Predictors of Serosorting Among Negative MSM (N = 265)

Predictor of Serosorting P OR 95% CI
BIVARIATE
Syndemic factors
DSM-IVR substance dependence 0.069 0.634 0.388, 1.036
Severe mental distress (past year) 0.001 0.419 0.256, 0.687
Victimization history (lifetime) 0.007 0.428 0.233, 0.789
Cognitive escapea 0.006 0.394 0.203, 0.764
Resilience measures
Coping self-efficacya 0.010 1.999 1.177, 3.395
Social engagementa 0.030 1.807 1.061, 3.079
Negative coping behaviors 0.017 0.813 0.685, 0.964
Positive coping behaviors 0.586 1.046 0.890, 1.228
MULTIVARIATE
Severe mental distress 0.008 0.493 0.293, 0.829
Victimization history (lifetime) 0.047 0.524 0.277, 0.993
Cognitive escapea 0.011 0.397 0.195, 0.809
Coping self-efficacya 0.204 1.485 0.807, 2.732
Social engagementa 0.007 2.202 1.241, 3.907
Negative coping behaviors 0.579 1.064 0.854, 1.326
Open in a new tab

Note.

a

75th percentile.

Results of the multivariate logistic regression model predicting serosorting among HIV-negative MSM are also shown in Table 3. All three syndemic factors that were significant in the bivariate models remained in the multivariate model, with severe mental distress (OR = .493, 95% CI = 0.293, 0.829; P = .008), high cognitive escape (OR = .397, 95% CI = 0.195, 0.809; P = .011), and lifetime victimization (OR = 0.524, 95% CI = 0.277, 0.993; P = .047) each associated with lower odds of serosorting. For resilience measures, high social engagement increased the odds of serosorting by a factor of 2.202 (95% CI = 1.241, 3.907; P = .007).

Finally, we examined the relationship between HIV-negative men’s perception of their risk of becoming infected and serosorting behavior: 83.5% of HIV-negative 100% serosorters believed that their chance of becoming infected in the future was less than 50%, whereas just 56.5% of nonserosorters did so (χ2 = 27.476; P < .001).

DISCUSSION

We examined the relationships between 100% serosorting behaviors and several measures of syndemic factors and resilience that are commonly used in the respective literatures. We believe this to be the first report using a resilience framework to understand serosorting as an adaptive risk reduction strategy. These analyses show that high risk MSM who reported 100% serosorting in the past 90 days, regardless of serostatus, were less likely to report at least some syndemic symptoms, and more likely to exhibit resilience characteristics, than men who did not.

Serosorting among HIV-positive men was predicted by lower levels of cognitive escape and higher levels of coping self-efficacy and positive coping skills. Although the HIV-positive men in the study exhibited very high levels of syndemic symptoms, including severe mental distress and substance dependence, the data suggest that significant numbers of these men manage to enact HIV risk reduction in spite of these problems. More specifically, these resilient strategies appear to be evidenced in coping skills that include seeking emotional support, taking action, asking for help and advice, and finding something good in life’s challenges. This suggests that intervention approaches that emphasize resilience-building may be effective vehicles for reducing sero- discordant/unknown UAI among HIV-positive men, despite their histories of syndemic problems.

Although serosorting, relative to condom use, may result in increased transmission of other sexually transmitted infections, as well as potential risks such as HIV superinfection and drug resistance (World Health Organization; WHO, 2011), prior research provides clear evidence that 100% condom use among HIV-positive men is unlikely to be achieved (McFarland et al., 2012). Recent World Health Organization (2011) guidance on serosorting states: “Serosorting may be a potential harm reduction strategy for individuals who choose not to use condoms, but it should not be promoted as an alternative strategy for HIV prevention.” The men in our sample reported heavy substance use, low rates of condom use, high frequencies of UAI, and rapid partner change. Given this, it would appear that a carefully considered and targeted harm reduction approach—including encouraging high risk HIV-positive men to select other HIV-positive men as their partners—would be within the spirit of the WHO guidelines and also contribute to reducing the number of new HIV infections among MSM.

The higher overall levels of 100% serosorting observed among HIV-negative men compared to HIV-positive men in our study, which differs from others’ research findings (Parsons et al., 2005; McFarland et al., 2012) may well be grounded in HIV-negative men’s generally lower levels of syndemic symptoms and higher levels of resilience, as well as the more difficult disclosure issues faced by HIV-positive men. Among HIV-negative men, lower levels of three syndemic factors—cognitive escape, victimization history, and severe mental distress—predicted serosorting. Three resilience measures—higher coping self efficacy and social engagement, and lower levels of negative coping skills were also associated with 100% serosorting behavior.

Moreover, the data provide evidence that serosorting is perceived by HIV-negative MSM to be an effective risk reduction strategy, as fully 83.5% of HIV-negative serosorters believed that their chance of becoming infected in the future was less than 50%, compared to just 56.5% of nonserosorters. Despite this perception among study participants, our findings indicate that promoting serosorting as a risk reduction strategy among high risk, substance-using HIV-negative MSM is likely to be unsuccessful, and would perhaps increase the level of new infections (Eaton et al., 2007; Golden et al., 2008). HIV-negative men in the study averaged 10 partners (SD = 13.79) and almost 19 UAI encounters (18.82; SD = 33.94) in the past 90 days. Given these rates of partner change and unprotected sex, no amount of increase in the frequency of HIV testing could eliminate the risk associated with undiagnosed infections. Recently infected sex partners often have very high viral loads, increasing both the transmissibility of the virus and the risk of serosorting (Pinkerton, 2008). Moreover, almost half (45%) of HIV-positive MSM in a recent Miami study were unaware of their infection (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005). And going further, in another report from this same study, we found that over 31% of HIV-negative men seroconverted within 5 years of moving to South Florida (Egan et al., 2011).

LIMITATIONS

Although the recruitment procedures resulted in a sample of a wide age range and broadly inclusive of the racial/ethnic makeup of South Florida, our ability to generalize the findings to other MSM is limited by the study eligibility requirements, including regular substance use and recent UAI. Syndemic characteristics are likely much more prevalent among high risk substance users than among MSM in general, and the relationship of syndemic and resilience factors to serosorting behaviors may well be different across MSM subgroups as well. We also note that all data are based on self-report, potentially leading to underreporting of socially undesirable behaviors. Given the high levels of substance use and sexual risk behaviors we found, however, underreporting of these and other stigmatized behaviors would appear to be uncommon. Further, our measure of serosorting covered the past 90-day period, excluded participants who reported anything less than 100% serosorting during that time, and was based upon reported counts of sexual behaviors; no data on whether the observed serosorting behaviors were intended were collected. Finally, it must be cautioned that the cross-sectional data presented do not permit attributions of causality to the observed relationships of the syndemic and resilience measures to serosorting behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

We examined syndemic and resilience factors among high risk MSM and their relationship to serosorting behaviors. We found that 100% serosorting was associated with fewer syndemic symptoms and higher levels of resilience factors. Resilience would appear to be a potentially important target for intervention approaches to reduce sexual risk behaviors among high risk MSM. Given the high rates of sexual partner change and UAI we found among substance using HIV-positive men, a harm reduction policy that includes the encouragement of serosorting among high risk HIV-positive MSM would seem to be a reasonable approach to reducing new infections.

For HIV-negative men, serosorting was predicted by measures of resilience and was also associated with a lower perceived likelihood of becoming infected in the future. Taken together, these findings suggest that serosorting is enacted by HIV-negative men as an adaptive and effective risk reduction strategy. Because high risk HIV-negative men like those in this study have very high rates of unprotected sex and partner change, however, frequent testing cannot be effective in enabling them to be aware of their real status. Public health messages that clearly identify these risks for HIV-negative MSM (e.g., that many men are unaware of their infection) could make a critically important contribution to prevention efforts. Our findings further suggest the potential promise of resilience-based intervention approaches for HIV-negative men that target other aspects of sexual risk reduction, such as the development of positive coping skills in place of using sex and drugs to cope, reducing the number of partners, and increasing condom use.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by DHHS Grant Number 5 R01 DA024579 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or the National Institutes of Health.

Contributor Information

Steven P. Kurtz, Center for Applied Research on Substance Use and Health Disparities, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Mance E. Buttram, Center for Applied Research on Substance Use and Health Disparities, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Hilary L. Surratt, Center for Applied Research on Substance Use and Health Disparities, Nova Southeastern University, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Ronald D. Stall, Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

References

  1. Alvy LM, McKirnan DJ, Mansergh G, Koblin B, Colfax GN, Flores SA, et al. Depression is associated with sexual risk among men who have sex with men, but is mediated by cognitive escape and self-efficacy. AIDS and Behavior. 2011;15(6):1171–1179. doi: 10.1007/s10461-010-9678-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bonet L, Wells BE, Parsons JT. A positive look at a difficult time: A strength based examination of coming out for lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of LBGT Health Research. 2007;3(1):7–14. doi: 10.1300/j463v03n01_02. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bruce D, Harper GW Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS. Operating without a safety net: Gay male adolescents and emerging adults’ experiences of marginalization and migration, and implications for theory of syndemic production of health disparities. Health Education and Behavior. 2011;38(4):367–378. doi: 10.1177/1090198110375911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Carver CS. You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 1997;4(1):92–100. doi: 10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 24. Vol. 54. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2005. HIV prevalence, unrecognized infection, and HIV testing among men who have sex with men—five U.S. cities, June 2004–April 2005. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2007. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009. p. 19. [Google Scholar]
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Syndemics Prevention Network. Spotlight on Syndemics. 2011 Retrieved August 29, 2011, from http://www.cdc.gov/syn-demics/
  8. Chesney MA, Neilands TB, Chambers DB, Taylor JM, Folkman S. A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale. British Journal of Health Psychology. 2006;11(Pt 3):421–437. doi: 10.1348/135910705X53155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cochran SD, Mays VM. Prevalence of primary mental health morbidity and suicide symptoms among gay and bisexual men. In: Wolitski SR, Valiserri RO, editors. Unequal opportunity: Health disparities affecting gay and bisexual men in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. pp. 971–120. [Google Scholar]
  10. De Santis J. Exploring the concepts of vulnerability and resilience in the context of HIV infection. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice. 2008;22(4):273–287. doi: 10.1891/0889-7182.22.4.273. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dennis ML, Titus JC, White MK, Unsicker JI, Hodgkins D. Global appraisal of individual needs-initial (GAIN-I) Bloomington, IL: Chestnut Health Systems; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dolan P. Traveling through social support and youth civic action on a journey towards resilience. In: Ungar M, editor. The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and practice. New York: Springer; 2011. pp. 357–366. [Google Scholar]
  13. Eaton LA, Kalichman SC, Cain DN, Cherry C, Stearns HL, Amaral CM, et al. Serosorting sexual partners and risk for HIV among men who have sex with men. American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 2007;33(6):479–485. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.08.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Egan JE, Frye V, Kurtz SP, Latkin C, Chen M, Tobin K, et al. Migration, neighborhoods, and networks: Approaches to understanding how urban environmental conditions affect syndemic adverse health outcomes among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior. 2011;15(Suppl 1):S35–40. doi: 10.1007/s10461-011-9902-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fergus S, Zimmerman MA. Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding health development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health. 2005;26:399–419. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Golden M, Stekler J, Hughes JP, Wood RW. HIV serosorting in men who have sex with men: Is it safe? Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. 2008;49(2):212–218. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31818455e8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Greenwood GL, Paul JP, Pollack LM, Binson D, Catania JA, Chang J, et al. Tobacco use and cessation among a household-based sample of U.S. urban men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health. 2005;95(1):145–151. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2003.021451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gwadz MV, Clatts MC, Yi H, Leonard NR, Goldsamt L, Lankenau S. Resilience among young men who have sex with men in New York City. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. 2006;3(1):13–21. doi: 10.1525/srsp.2006.3.1.13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Herrick AL, Lim SH, Wei C, Smith H, Guadamuz T, Friedman MS, et al. Resilience as an untapped resource in behavioral intervention design for gay men. AIDS and Behavior. 2011;(Suppl 1):S25–S29. doi: 10.1007/s10461-011-9895-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kent M, Davis MC. The emergence of capacity-building programs and models of resilience. In: Reich JW, Zautra AJ, Hall JS, editors. Handbook of adult resilience. New York: Guilford Press; 2010. pp. 427–449. [Google Scholar]
  21. Martin JI, Alessi EJ. Stressful events, avoidance coping, and unprotected anal sex among gay and bisexual men. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2010;80(3):293–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01032.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. McConnell JJ, Bragg L, Shiboski S, Grant RM. Sexual seroadaptation: Lessons for prevention and sex research from a cohort of HIV-positive men who have sex with men. PLoS One. 2010;5(1):e8831. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. McFarland W, Chen YH, Nguyen B, Grasso M, Levine D, Stall R, et al. Behavior, intention or chance? A longitudinal study of HIV seroadaptive behaviors, abstinence and condom use. AIDS and Behavior. 2012;16:121–131. doi: 10.1007/s10461-011-9936-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. McKirnan DJ, Vanable PA, Ostrow DG, Hope B. Expectancies of sexual “escape” and sexual risk among drug and alcohol-involved gay and bisexual men. Journal of Substance Abuse. 2001;13(1–2):137–154. doi: 10.1016/s0899-3289(01)00063-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mills TC, Paul J, Stall R, Pollack L, Canchola J, Chang YJ, et al. Distress and depression in men who have sex with men: The Urban Men’s Health Study. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2004;161(2):278–285. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.2.278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Mustanski B, Garofalo R, Herrick A, Donenberg G. Psychosocial health problems increase risk for HIV among urban young men who have sex with men: Preliminary evidence of a syndemic in need of attention. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2007;34(1):37–45. doi: 10.1080/08836610701495268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. O’Dell BL, Rosser BR, Miner MH, Jacoby SM. HIV prevention altruism and sexual risk behavior in HIV-positive men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior. 2008;12(5):713–720. doi: 10.1007/s10461-007-9321-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Parsons JT, Gov C, Golub SA. Sexual compulsivity, co-occurring psychosocial health problems, and HIV risk among gay and bisexual men: Further evidence of a syndemic. American Journal of Public Health. 2011;102(1):156–162. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Parsons JT, Schrimshaw EW, Wolitski RJ, Halkitis PN, Purcell DW, Hoff CC, et al. Sexual harm reduction practices of HIV-seropositive gay and bisexual men: Serosorting, strategic positioning, and withdrawal before ejaculation. AIDS. 2005;(Suppl 1):S13–S25. doi: 10.1097/01.aids.0000167348.15750.9a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Parsons JT, Severino J, Nanin J, Punzalan JC, von Sternberg K, Missildine W, Frost D. Positive, negative, unknown: Assumptions of HIV status among HIV-positive men who have sex with men. AIDS Education and Prevention. 2006;18(2):139–149. doi: 10.1521/aeap.2006.18.2.139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Philip SS, Yu X, Donnell D, Vittinghoff E, Buchbinder S. Serosorting is associated with a decreased risk of HIV sero-conversion in the EXPLORE study cohort. PLoS One. 2010;5(9):e12662. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012662. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Pinkerton SD. Acute HIV infection increases the dangers of serosorting. American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 2008;35(2):184. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.04.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rabkin JG, Remien R, Katoff L, Williams JB. Resilience in adversity among long-term survivors of AIDS. Hospital and Community Psychiatry. 1993;44:162–167. doi: 10.1176/ps.44.2.162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Rosser BR, Hatfield LA, Miner MH, Ghiselli ME, Lee BR, Welles SL Positive Connections Team. Effects of a behavioral intervention to reduce sero-discordant unsafe sex among HIV positive men who have sex with men: The positive connections randomized controlled trial study. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2010;33(2):147–158. doi: 10.1007/s10865-009-9244-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Siegel K, Meyer IH. Hope and resilience in suicide ideation and behavior of gay and bisexual men following notification of HIV infection. AIDS Education and Prevention. 1999;11(1):53–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Smith DM, Gates GJ. Gay and lesbian families in the United States: Same-sex unmarried partner households: A preliminary analysis of 2000 United States Census data, a human rights campaign report. Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  37. Snowden JM, Raymond HF, McFarland W. Prevalence of seroadaptive behaviours of men who have sex with men, San Francisco, 2004. Sexually Transmitted Infections. 2009;85(6):469–476. doi: 10.1136/sti.2009.036269. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Stall R, Friedman M, Catania JA. Interacting epidemics and gay men’s health: A theory of syndemic production among urban gay men. In: Stall R, Wolitski RJ, Valiserri RO, editors. Unequal opportunity: Health disparities affecting gay and bisexual men in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  39. Stall R, Mills TC, Williamson J, Hart T, Greenwood G, Paul J, et al. Association of co-occurring psychosocial health problems and increased vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among urban men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health. 2003;93(6):939–942. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.6.939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Stall R, Paul JP, Greenwood G, Pollack LM, Crosby GM, Mills TC, et al. Alcohol use, drug use and alcohol-related problems among men who have sex with men: the urban men’s health study. Addiction. 2001;96(11):1589–1601. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.961115896.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 5. New York: Allyn & Bacon; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  42. Truong HHM, Kellogg T, Klausner JD, Katz MH, Dilley J, Knapper K, et al. Increases in sexually transmitted infections and sexual risk behaviour without a concurrent increase in HIV incidence among men who have sex with men in San Francisco: A suggestion of HIV serosorting? Sexually Transmitted Infections. 2006;82(6):461–466. doi: 10.1136/sti.2006.019950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Van de Ven P, Kippax S, Crawford J, Rawston P, Prestage G, Grulich A, et al. In a minority of gay men, sexual risk practice indicates strategic positioning for perceived risk reduction rather than unbridled sex. AIDS Care. 2002;14(4):471–480. doi: 10.1080/09540120208629666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. van Kesteren NMC, Hospers HJ, Gerjo K. Sexual risk behavior among HIV-positive men who have sex with men: A literature review. Patient Education and Counseling. 2007;65(1):5–20. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wolitski RJ, Valiserri O, Stall R. Health disparities affecting gay and bisexual men in the United States: An Introduction. In: Stall R, Wolitski RJ, Valiserri RO, editors. Unequal opportunity: Health disparities affecting gay and bisexual men in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. pp. 3–32. [Google Scholar]
  46. World Health Organization. Prevention and treatment of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men and transgender people. 2011 Retrieved October 12, 2011, from http://www.who.int. [PubMed]
  47. Zimmerman MA. Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1995;23(5):581–599. doi: 10.1007/BF02506983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES