Table 3.

Studies Using Vague (Broad) Definitions of Sexual Violence in Associations Between Sexual IPV and HIV Risk

Author (Year) & Setting	Study Sample	Sexual IPV Definition & Measures	HIV Risk Measures	Prevalence of Sexual IPV	Findings
Burke (2005) Baltimore, MD, United States	N= 611 women (310 HIV+; 301 HIV−) aged 18-40+ yrs from outpatient clinics, a homeless shelter and community center	“Have you ever been forced into sexual activities by a husband, boyfriend, or female partner?”	HIV serostatus	▪ 23% of total sample reported any sexual IPV (22% HIV+; 22% HIV−);	▪ No significant difference in prevalence between HIV+/HIV−women and experiences of sexual IPV.
				▪ 2% of total sample reported only sexual IPV (no physical)
Gupta (2008) New Delhi and Chennai, India	N=459 women (216 HIV+; 243 HIV−) aged 18–61 yrs recruited from general hospitals	Forced sex in marriage	HIV serostatus	▪ 39.3% HIV+ women vs 30.2% HIV− women reported ever having forced/coerced sex in marriage	▪ In bivariate model, HIV+ women more likely to report forced/coerced sex in marriage.
Maman (2002) Dar es Salaam, Tanzania	N=245 women (73 HIV+; 172 HIV−) aged 18-55 yrs, recruited from a voluntary HIV counseling and testing clinic	Lifetime sexual violence- current partner (from CTS) and “How many partners have you had who have physically forced you into sexual activity against your will?”	HIV serostatus	▪ 44.1% HIV+ women vs 23.0% HIV− women reported lifetime sexual violence with current partner; 16.3% of total had at least 1 sexually abusive partner in lifetime	▪ HIV + women significantly more likely than HIV− women to experience sexual IPV with current partner (AOR 2.39; 95% CI: 1.21 – 4.73).
					▪ No significant difference in number of sexually abusive partners between HIV+ and HIVwomen.
Sareen (2009) United States	N=13,928 women, aged 20–65+ yrs (population-based)	How often in past year has spouse or partner forced you to have sex?	Self-reported HIV status	▪ No HIV+ women; 58 out of 13,842 HIV-women	▪ No comparisons could be made for sexual IPV on HIV status due to low prevalence.
Simoni (2004) New York metropolitan area, United States	N=155 American Indian women, members of an American Indian community center, aged 18–87 yrs	Ever sexually abused or assaulted by a spouse/sexual partner.	Lifetime: unsafe sex, high-risk sex, injection drug use; Current: male and female sex partner past yr, consistent condom use, substance use before or during sex, frequency of drug/alcohol use in past yr	▪ 20% reported lifetime sexual trauma by sex partner	▪ In bivariate analyses, sexual trauma by partner associated with high-risk sex and injection drug use.
					▪ Lifetime sexual trauma by partner not associated with any current sexual or drug risk behaviors.
Teitleman (2008) United States	N=2,058 sexually active adolescents aged 18–26 yrs (population-based)	Past yr frequency of having their partner insist on or make them have sexual relations when they did not want to (from CTS2)	Past yr condom use frequency, condom use at last vaginal sex, recent STI	▪ 11.8% ever forced to have sex	▪ Forced sex not associated with HIV risk.
Zablostska (2009) Rakai, Uganda	N=3,422 sexually active women aged 15–24 yrs, from the Rakai community cohort	“Have any of your sexual partners ever physically forced you to have sex when you didn’t want to? and frequency in past yr	Condom use, number and characteristics of sexual partners, sex for money/gifts, alcohol use	▪ 22.4% lifetime sexual coercion; 13.4% in past yr	▪ HIV prevalence for women with histories of sexual coercion higher but not sig. different from HIV-group.

AOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.