Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Health Educ Behav. 2021 Apr 9;48(5):604–614. doi: 10.1177/10901981211003859

Building Community in the HIV Online Intervention Space: Lessons from the HealthMPowerment Intervention

NA Blackburn 1,*, W Dong 1, M Threats 2,3, M Barry 4, S LeGrand 5, L Hightow-Weidman 1,6, K Soni 6, DV Pulley 1,7, JA Bauermeister 8, K Muessig 1
PMCID: PMC8446859  NIHMSID: NIHMS1705744  PMID: 33834892

Abstract

Introduction:

Mobile Health (mHealth) platforms can facilitate social support and address HIV stigma but pose challenges for intervention design and participant engagement. Giddens’ Structuration Theory, that individuals are shaped by - and shape - their communities through rules and resources which give them power to operate within these environments, provides a useful analytic framework for exploring these dynamic intervention spaces.

Methods:

Data draw from an online randomized-control trial intervention (HealthMpowerment) for young Black men who have sex with men to reduce condomless anal intercourse. We applied a conversational analysis informed by Structuration Theory to 65 user-generated conversations that included stigma content. We aimed to understand how the interdependent relationship between the intervention space and participants’ contributions might contribute to behavior change.

Results:

Thirty-five intervention participants contributed to the analyzed conversations. Our analysis identified three types of conversational processes that may underlie behavior change: 1) through intervention engagement, participants established norms and expectations that shaped their discussions; 2) participants used anecdotes and anonymity to reinforce norms; and 3) intervention staff members sought to improve engagement and build knowledge by initiating discussions and correcting misinformation thus playing an integral role in the online community.

Conclusions:

The lens of Structuration Theory usefully reveals potential behavior change mechanisms within the social interactions of an online intervention. Future design of these interventions to address HIV stigma should explicitly characterize the context in which individuals (study staff and participants) engage with one another in order to assess whether these processes are associated with improved intervention outcomes.

Keywords: HIV, HealthMPowerment, eHealth, men who have sex with men, conversational analysis, Structuration Theory

Introduction

In 2018, Black men who have sex with men (BMSM) accounted for 26% of new HIV diagnoses in the United States (US); among persons aged 13–24 diagnosed with HIV, 52% were young Black MSM (YBMSM) (CDC, 2019). The southern US is particularly affected with BMSM accounting for 48% of all diagnoses (CDC, 2019). Stigma, homophobia, and racism substantially contribute to HIV risk thus interventions are needed that address vulnerabilities that may arise from multiple stigmatized social identities (Barry et al., 2018; Sang et al., 2018; Arnold et al., 2014; Quinn & Dickson-Gomez, 2016).

Stigma occurs at the individual, interpersonal, and structural levels (Link & Phelan, 2001) and results in alienation, punishment and other forms of social sanctions (Goffman, 1963). BMSM experience structural discrimination by institutions that impede their access to HIV prevention, treatment, and care (Eaton et al., 2018; Matthews et al., 2016). Southern YBMSM have described mistreatment by healthcare providers and fear of HIV testing and HIV medication (Threats et al., 2020). Within Black communities and gay communities dominated by White men, YBMSM may experience social isolation or encounter stigmatizing messages that impact their quality of life (Arnold et al., 2014; Haile et al., 2011; Scott et al., 2014). Efforts to reduce societal stigma and provide spaces for YBMSM to connect and build social support are critical for eliminating stigma-related barriers to HIV prevention and care (Lauby et al, 2012; Scott et al, 2014).

Online interventions that provide space for YBMSM to engage with one another have the potential to counter stigma and reduce social isolation by supporting and strengthening community structure (Barry et al., 2018). Efforts to develop and sustain online intervention communities have been largely atheoretical, inhibiting understanding of intervention mechanisms. Using a theoretically grounded approach to analyze an online intervention community’s conversations could improve understanding of what interactions facilitate the intervention’s goals.

To date, behavior change mobile interventions that apply theoretical frameworks are primarily informed by individual-level theories including Social Cognitive Theory, the Transtheoretical Model, and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Golden & Earp, 2012; Riley et al., 2011); these theories neglect or downplay external influences, such as those pertaining to online spaces (Bull & Ezeanochie, 2016; Roux & Diez, 2007; Kaufman, Cornish, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2014). In contrast, community-level theories advance the understanding of human relationships to their environments (Couclelis, 1992). As a particular kind of environment, online spaces – and their communities – pose unique rules of engagement compared to in-person interactions.

Structuration Theory posits a recursive relationship between agency and social structure. Structure is defined as rules, routines, and customs, such that individuals create and reinforce informal community structure through their social actions, which are themselves driven by the rules and customs that constitute those structures (Giddens, 1984; Ling et al., 2020; Tural, 2017). As people of different backgrounds and social upbringings come together, they change the social fabric of a community (Giddens, 1984). Structuration Theory also suggests that individuals have substantive control and influence (agency) over the constitution of their social environment(s) (Burke et al., 2009; Frohlich, Corin, & Potvin, 2001; Giddens, 1984; Misir, 2015; Sewell, 1992). Applying Structuration Theory to the concept of stigma, the space of an online intervention may facilitate or mitigate stigma through rules, processes, and design, but individuals may also facilitate or mitigate stigma through actions such as condoning stigma, or providing social support to confront or address stigma.

Individuals come to the online space of community-building interventions with their identities and understanding of the social norms of those identities and the norms of online engagement (Storholm et al., 2019). These norms inform their perceptions of stigma that have developed from other communities they participate in, both virtual and tangible. As they engage with one another in online spaces, they continually build a structure from their own perceptions of these identity-related norms and a new online community with co-created social norms that may challenge and, at times, perpetuate stigma (Misir, 2015). HealthMpowerment.org (HMP) is a web-based, mobile optimized intervention that aimed to build an online community of YBMSM and reduce condomless anal intercourse (CAI) (Hightow-Weidman et al., 2015). A North Carolina-wide randomized controlled trial (RCT) of HMP found a 32% reduction in CAI at the end of the 3-month intervention period (Hightow-Weidman et al., 2019). In subsequent analyses, Bauermeister and colleagues identified sexuality and HIV stigma as common topics of discussion within HMP; they found that those who challenged sexuality stigma within the forums had lower internalized homophobia (Bauermeister et al., 2019). The mechanisms underlying these findings are less understood and warranted further exploration.

As such, we aimed to understand how YBMSM participants constructed community within this structured online space. In applying Structuration Theory to analyze conversations among participants and between intervention staff and participants, we sought to improve understanding of the relational dynamics of online interventions. Our analysis characterized how these interactions might perpetuate existing social norms online but also challenge stigmatizing language and stereotypes. Our findings can inform future mHealth interventions, particularly those that aim to use social support or community building as mechanisms of change.

Methods

Parent Study

Data for this analysis come from the HMP online RCT. As described above, HMP was an internet-based, mobile-phone optimized intervention (Figure 1) for YBMSM of any HIV status (Muessig, Baltierra, Pike, LeGrand, & Hightow-Weidman, 2014; Hightow-Weidman et al., 2015). The intervention website included areas where users could create, contribute, and read conversation threads. The primary study design and outcomes are provided elsewhere (Hightow-Weidman et al., 2019). Briefly, participants were recruited in North Carolina through social media websites, venue and community-based flyers and palm cards, healthcare facilities including HIV/STI clinics, case management organizations, and through friends or word of mouth. Eligible participants were 18 – 30 years old, identified as male sex assigned at birth, self-identify as African-American/Black, reside in or receive HIV-related medical care in North Carolina, have access to an internet-enabled mobile device with texting capability, and selfreport one or more sexual risk criteria in the past six months (e.g. CAI, exchange of sex for drugs or money). All participants were consented and enrolled in person and completed Qualtrics surveys at baseline and follow-up time points (3, 6 and 12 months), for a total possible remuneration of $210. The University of North Carolina’s Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Screen shot of the Homepage with the site features listed on HealthMPowerment.org

In total, 474 participants were randomized to HMP or an information-only control website. HMP included three areas to facilitate interaction with others: a question & answer with a board-certified infectious disease doctor, a creative space for posting videos, images, and other media, and an open thread (the Forum) to initiate or add to conversations (Figure 1). The intended intervention period (“dose”) was 3-months of use, however participants could access their assigned study condition website (intervention or control) for the duration of the 12-month follow-up period. The website was only available for study purposes and was not in the public domain.

We defined “structure” in this intervention as the way in which language on the site enabled and constrained participants’ verbal behavior, with conversations being knit together to build an environment where individuals engaged with one another (Giddens, 1984; Bodolica et al., 2016; Ling et al., 2018; Zanin & Piercy, 2019). The structure of the website, therefore, were the rules for participation in the intervention website, including that participants’ screen names could not include personal identifying characteristics. Community guidelines were posted on the site and included mutual respect and tolerance and restrictions on posting sexually explicit material, hate speech, predatory behavior, etc. Study staff who each had a username with “HMP” in the handle (e.g. HMPJared), responded to possible violations of site rules with a warning. HMP staff also responded to questions posted by participants on the site and provided additional resources on the site as requested. HMP staff were of diverse race/ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and age. All staff were experienced working with YBMSM and trained in the study protocols.

Our dataset focused on Forum conversations because this space was designed to promote dialogue and encourage open, user-generated conversations. The Forum’s interactive nature lent itself to the importance of capturing and analyzing full conversations in context. Participants’ contributing and responding within conversations was critical for our analysis because of the tenets of Structuration Theory and participants’ shaping of their online space.

Analysis

Two analysts independently coded all Forum conversations for any stigma content following an analytic framework and codebook developed by the larger research team (Bauermeister et al., 2019). Categories included perpetuating, experiencing, anticipating, and challenging stigma in the context of HIV, race, gender, and sexuality-related stigma (Bauermeister et al., 2019; Barry et al., 2018). Differences were resolved through discussion among the larger analysis team.

Within this coded dataset, two analysts (NB, WD) then conducted a conversational analysis, developed from discourse analysis (Giles, Stommel et al., 2015), with inductive content analysis in which entire conversations are analyzed to identify processes and themes. Conversational analysis can help identify patterns within an interaction and has been used in health services research to analyze patient-provider communication, including the ways in which providers might shape patients’ responses (Drew et al., 2001; Uchitel et al., 2020). This method is particularly well-suited for online discussion threads due to the unique form which offers an asynchronous text-based interaction that documents the conversation’s history and evolves over time with participant engagement (Giles et al., 2015). We chose to analyze all HMP conversations in which participants or staff initiated a conversation with a post coded as “perpetuating stigma” that were immediately followed by a “challenging stigma” post. By studying how participants built on one another’s posts and how staff engaged with participants, we aimed to understand how changes in stigma might be accomplished through this medium.

Results

We identified 65 conversations in which 34 participants and six staff members contributed content that both perpetuated and challenged stigma. Three main conversational processes emerged:

  • Participants shaping and being shaped by rules and structure of conversations

  • Use of anecdotes to establish social norms and protect anonymity

  • HMP staff contributing to the structure creation

Below we first briefly describe these three conversational processes. We then present three full conversations from the Forum and identify how these processes are displayed in each. Participants are assigned the same numbering scheme (i.e. Participant 1) across excerpted conversations to reflect continuity in their participation on the site.

Summary of Conversational Processes

Participants shaping and being shaped by rules and structure in the online space (i.e. “Shaping Process”):

Participants built on predetermined HMP community guidelines, creating rules and structure through their responses to stigmatizing language. This derived structure was further maintained through participants’ perpetuation and challenge of stigma in their post responses. In some instances, stigma was perpetuated when participants referenced stereotypes or used language that stereotyped certain groups in their post. Participants challenged one another on how they verbalized opinions that perpetuated stigma and characterized a general norm in the space against certain kinds of stereotyping, while also affirming specific extreme stereotypes.

Use of anecdotes to establish social norms in the context of anonymity (i.e. “Anecdotes Process”)

While the anonymity of the online space was an imposed structure on this intervention (e.g. participants’ screen names could not include personal identifying characteristics), participants used anecdotes to shape social norms in the context of this anonymity. First, participants imparted their lived experiences as a form of shared cultural knowledge in the online discussion space. Through providing their own stories and anecdotes, they established credibility on living as a YBMSM, and in the process, established structure in the form of social norms within the anonymous online space that others then followed. Furthermore, the online space allows for anonymity that can be protective for individuals as they describe and recount in-person experiences. For some participants, fear of being stigmatized or judged for expressing certain opinions or sharing personal stories was lessened through the anonymity of the online space, as participants frequently described difficult face-to-face interactions and conversations openly on the site.

HMP Staff contributing to the structure of the space as facilitators and members of the community (i.e. “Staff as Community Members Process”):

Throughout the intervention period, HMP staff posted web hyperlinks and started conversation topics with the goal of spurring intervention engagement and dialogue among participants. The HMP intervention planned for staff to monitor the forums and contribute as-needed; we found that the role of HMP staff evolved as part of maintaining participant engagement such that they became part of the community as they created and contributed to conversations that further shaped the online space. These contributions occurred for three main reasons: to provide resources and additional information about a topic, to offer medically accurate information in response to incorrect posts, and, to remind and reinforce the HMP site community guidelines of mutual respect and confidentiality.

Illustrating the Three Conversational Processes in Forum Discussions

In the first example conversation, six participants discuss masculine and feminine characteristics in men, each speaking about their own experiences and norms (Shaping Process, Anecdotes Process).

Conversation A: Masculinity and Femininity in Dating Preferences

(Figures 2 & 3) In this conversation, Participant 1 describes to the HMP online space an in-person discussion he had with a friend (Anecdotes Process). He elicits perspectives from the HMP community on their understanding of masculinity and femininity, particularly in the context of attraction. The first person who responds to the post qualifies his response as “subjective”, and goes on to express stereotypes that shape the way the conversation progresses (Shaping Process). This respondent is expressing a belief, bringing to the conversation a perspective shaped by their background and community norms. The conversation continues, however, to challenge those norms and shape this space.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Conversation A Part 1

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Conversation A Part 2

Participant 1 defines “normal” as a mix of feminine and masculine traits providing further shape to the conversation and to the broader norms being built in this community space. Participant 3 challenges the stigma presented in these posts by confronting the standards of masculinity and femininity that have been defined thus far (Shaping Process).

The conversation unfolds with more stigmatizing language even as participants struggle to articulate the role of personal preferences with perpetuating broader stereotypes in society. The conversation maintains that there are generally accepted definitions of what is “masculine” or “feminine”, and that this diversity should be valued within the community (Participant 5, Figure 2, lines 36–38) (Shaping Process) while also noting a tension in how the media creates stereotypes that lead to masking diversity and enhancing stigma. Participant 4 responds (Figure 3, line 1) to clarify his position.

Participant 6 joins the conversation late, initially affirming the importance of the topic. Participant 1 urges them to go deeper envoking a sense of safety and shared values (“were [sic] all family here”, Figure 3, line 8) (Shaping Process). Participant 6 obliges, discussing how he presents himself in the in-person space depending on the group with whom he is associating. His illustration bridges some of the ideas previous respondents provided and then poses a fundamental connection between the gendered stereotypes they are describing within same sex relationships and mainstream social constructions of gender roles (Figure 3, Lines 19–21) (Anecdotes Process).

Participant 1 further discusses how these stereotypes stem from a bias against women/the feminine and Participant 4 appears to agree while also suggesting that gender stereotypes notwithstanding, people have a right to their preferences, calling out “the gay community” (Shaping Process, Anecdotes Process). The response from Participant 2 demonstrates a continued engagement since his first response at the beginning of the conversation. Earlier he noted the subjectivity of everyone’s definitions of femininity and masculinity. As he closes the conversation, he concedes that socially accepted distinctions of masculine and feminine exist but may also be (re)defined by the individual (Shaping Process, Anecdotes Process).

Conversation B: Pornography in Sexual Relationships

In the second example conversation, four participants and one HMP staff member discuss how pornography is viewed in the context of relationships (Shaping Process, Anecdotes Process, Staff as Community Members Process). The conversation includes stigmatizing language about the effects of pornography on individuals.

After Participant 1’s initial post, HMP Staff 1 joins in, sets a particular tone, and then encourages participation and commentary from others. HMP Staff 1’s response appears to balance not stigmatizing those who choose to watch pornography while also addressing misinformation about pornography and acknowledging its potential for addiction. This response demonstrates one role HMP staff take in moderating conversations (Staff as Community Members Process). This kind of staff moderation builds and maintains the structure of the online space, highlighting the role of the HMP staff as part of the online intervention community rather than external to it (Shaping Process).

In raising the idea of pornography as potentially educational, Participant 1’s response challenges some of the stigmatizing language used in the initial post (e.g. “pollutes the mind and relationships”, Figure 4, lines 2–3) (Shaping Process, Anecdotes Process). As the conversation progresses, Participant 7 shares personal experiences. The anonymity of the online space appears to facilitate this sharing around what occurs in the in-person space as they take part in porn consumption (Anecdotes Process). Participant 8 raises another potentially stigmatizing perspective, in stating that consuming pornography is only for individuals who are not in relationships (“when you’re single it’s okay”, Figure 4, line 25). This language could discourage others from sharing their own experiences about watching pornography with a partner or when in a relationship; this response appears to shape the space in a way that cuts off further conversation (Shaping Process).

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Conversation B

Conversation C - What Is Truvada (Pre-exposure Prophylaxis or PrEP)

Conversation C includes two HMP staff members providing information about PrEP and attempting to better understand how the participants in HMP view PrEP (Staff as Community Members Process). Four participants respond to the HMP staffs’ posts with their own conceptions of what PrEP is and ideas of why different people take it (Shaping Process, Anecdotes Process).

Here we see HMP staff initiating discussion in attempts to build conversation, facilitate the sharing of information, and draw out opinions around PrEP (Shaping Process, Staff as Community Members Process).

Participant 9’s response shares what he learns from the article posted, demonstrating how he is being shaped by information provided in this space (Shaping Process). HMP Staff 2 then interjects in order to draw out more information and have the participants educate one another from their experiences accessing PrEP (Shaping Process, Anecdotes Process, Staff as Community Members Process).

HMP Staff 2 requests more information in response to Participant 9’s post around the need for men to use PrEP (Staff as Community Members Process). Other participants then voice their concerns, perspectives and experiences (Shaping Process, Anecdotes Process). This conversation demonstrates how staff could learn from participants’ shared experiences and continue to shape the online discussions. Such concerns from participants around PrEP provided an opportunity for staff to further explore how to communicate and discuss PrEP. The stigmatizing associations with taking PrEP (“no sex is good anymore!”) also offered insight to intervention staff on possible barriers to address to improve future interventions targeting PrEP uptake.

Discussion

The design and implementation of the HMP intervention shaped participant behavior in the intervention space to allow participants to define and explore multiple stigmas including race, gender, sexuality, and HIV serostatus-related stigma. Using a Structuration Theory lens to analyze these conversations revealed how the structure provided by the intervention, relevance of the intervention’s resources to the outside world, and individuals’ challenging and perpetuation of stigma within the forum conversations were important dynamics in the workings of the intervention. In addition to the structures provided through the design of the intervention and interventionist participation, participants also shaped the intervention through setting rules and exercising agency, such as by establishing positive norms and resisting stigma in the context of the Forum posts.

Using the lens of Structuration highlighted specific features of online interventions. The intervention was designed to encourage participants to access the space repeatedly over the three-month intervention. By examining the conversations that evolved, the recurrent social practices that form the rules of the environment can be observed. Unlike in-person interventions, the emergence of recurrent social practices is more easily observed across the life of the intervention. These features of online interventions build our understanding of complex processes such as community-wide social support (as opposed to one-on-one social support), and the building of community and social cohesion (LeGrand et al., 2014). Additionally, recognizing negative processes (e.g. the impact on other participants when individuals use stereotypes or demeaning language) also allowed for opportunities to minimize the impact of these processes on others within the intervention context. Our team’s earlier work found that engaging in discussions about experiencing stigma was associated with internalized homophobia (Bauermeister et al., 2019), though we could not establish the temporality or mechanisms of this relationship. By understanding the benefits and harms of conversational processes, health educators and practitioners could try to amplify or minimize them in online interventions.

Furthermore, we found that intervention staff members were critical to conversation in the Forum. While online interventions often provide few details about the actions of intervention staff, we found that program staff actively contributed to the growth and maintenance of the online community. This work is often a component of an online community’s “sociability features”, referring to the design features that increase engagement and interaction of a social media site (Preece, 2001). A 2016 study of a forum for Weight Watchers (an organization dedicated to promoting weight loss), found that the lack of a moderator or health educator allowed for inaccurate posts by participants to remain unaddressed, which may have detracted from the goals of the site (Wang & Willis, 2016).

Online interventions focused on community-building, such as HMP, may access vulnerable populations who are typically not reached by traditional in-person interventions (Iribarren et al, 2018; Miner et al., 2012). With the increased recognition of the complex dynamics of behavioral interventions, recurrent social practices can be identified using constructs and mechanisms from Structuration (Hawe et al., 2009). While process evaluation suggests the need for reproducible interventions, our study suggests that while the interactions and “space” of the intervention is unique, the mechanisms of how participants and intervention structure shaped each other may be identified and fostered across interventions. In particular, moderation-related processes such as those of the HMP staff should be operationalized and measured in future studies as a key determinant of intervention success (Gold et al., 2011).

Our study had a few limitations. First, it is difficult to know how the intervention space impacted those who did not post comments. As the structure of the intervention reflected in the Forum allowed participants’ dialogue to both perpetuate and challenge stigma, “mainstream” perspectives and experiences could replicate oppressive structures within the online space influencing who chose not to post on the website.

Second, we did not incorporate the occurrence of external social, cultural and/or political events in our analysis. External events, such as the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Missouri (08/2014), spurred on conversations and contributed to an emphasis on certain issues over others (Carney, 2016). Individuals could also join conversations and leave conversations as they pleased, as well as leave the intervention after three months based on the timeline for the RCT (the trial occurred from 2013–2015). These disruptions and external factors influenced the content and nature of posts on the website and do not reflect all important stigma-related issues impacting YBMSM in their day to day.

Conclusion

HealthMPowerment offers an example of the potential for online interventions to address pressing health disparities through engagement with social drivers of HIV such as stigma and social isolation. Online interventions are designed with particular structures, but typically analyzed with measures at the individual and interpersonal levels. Using Structuration Theory as an analytic framework more clearly revealed the processes underlying intervention conversations and may help identify how to shape online spaces to improve user engagement and ultimately user health. Online spaces may lend themselves to analysis using the theoretical tools of other disciplines to study complex processes that shape participant behavior. Future studies of online interventions should examine both factors leading to the success of the intervention, such as the moderation staff use to engage participants and the building of supportive relationships in an online community, as well as those that may detract from intervention objectives such as the perpetuation of stigma in anonymous spaces.

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

Conversation C

Acknowledgement:

We would like to thank all those who participated in the study and project staff for all their work; and Shelley Golden for her advice and support.

Funding statement:

Research reported in this publication was supported in full by Federal grant money from the National Institute of Mental Health of the United States of America National Institutes of Health under award numbers R21MH105292 and R01MH093275. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest statement:

All authors confirm that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose - financial or otherwise - in the conduct and completion of this work.

References

  1. Arnold EA, Rebchook GM, & Kegeles SM (2014). ‘Triply cursed’: racism, homophobia and HIV-related stigma are barriers to regular HIV testing, treatment adherence and disclosure among young Black gay men. Culture, health & sexuality, 16(6), 710–722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barry MC, Threats M, Blackburn NA, LeGrand S, Dong W, Pulley DV, … & Muessig KE (2018). “Stay strong! keep ya head up! move on! it gets better!!!!”: resilience processes in the healthMpowerment online intervention of young black gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men. AIDS care, 30(sup5), S27–S38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bauermeister J, Muessig K, LeGrand S, Flores D, Choi S, Dong W, et al. (2019). HIV and sexuality stigma reduction through engagement in online forums: results from the HealthMPowerment intervention. AIDS and behavior, 23(3), 742–752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bodolica V, Spraggon M, & Tofan G. (2016). A structuration framework for bridging the macro–micro divide in health-care governance. Health Expectations, 19(4), 790–804. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bull S, & Ezeanochie N. (2016). From Foucault to Freire through Facebook: toward an integrated theory of mHealth. Health Education & Behavior, 43(4), 399–411. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Burke NJ, Joseph G, Pasick RJ, & Barker JC (2009). Theorizing social context: Rethinking behavioral theory. Health Education & Behavior, 36(5_suppl), 55S–70S. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carney N. (2016). All lives matter, but so does race: Black lives matter and the evolving role of social media. Humanity & Society, 40(2), 180–199. [Google Scholar]
  8. Couclelis H. (1992). Location, place, region, and space. Geography’s inner worlds, 2, 15–233. [Google Scholar]
  9. Eaton LA, Earnshaw VA, Maksut JL, Thorson KR, Watson RJ, & Bauermeister JA (2018). Experiences of stigma and health care engagement among Black MSM newly diagnosed with HIV/STI. Journal of behavioral medicine, 41(4), 458–466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Frohlich KL, Corin E, & Potvin L. (2001). A theoretical proposal for the relationship between context and disease. Sociology of health & illness, 23(6), 776–797. [Google Scholar]
  11. Giddens A. (1984) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Univ of California Press. [Google Scholar]
  12. Giles D, Stommel W, Paulus T, Lester J, & Reed D. (2015). Microanalysis of online data: The methodological development of “digital CA”. Discourse, Context & Media, 7, 45–51. [Google Scholar]
  13. Goffman E. (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gold J, Pedrana AE, Sacks-Davis R, Hellard ME, Chang S, Howard S, … & Stoove MA. (2011). A systematic examination of the use of online social networking sites for sexual health promotion. BMC public health, 11(1), 583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Golden SD, & Earp JAL (2012). Social ecological approaches to individuals and their contexts: twenty years of health education & behavior health promotion interventions. Health education & behavior, 39(3), 364–372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Haile R, Padilla MB, & Parker EA (2011). ‘Stuck in the quagmire of an HIV ghetto’: The meaning of stigma in the lives of older black gay and bisexual men living with HIV in new york city. Culture, health & sexuality, 13(04), 429–442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hawe P, Shiell A, & Riley T. (2009). Theorising interventions as events in systems. American journal of community psychology, 43(3–4), 267–276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hightow-Weidman LB, LeGrand S, Muessig KE, Simmons RA, Soni K, Choi SK, … & Egger JR (2019). A randomized trial of an online risk reduction intervention for young black MSM. AIDS and Behavior, 23(5), 1166–1177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hightow-Weidman LB, Muessig KE, Pike EC, LeGrand S, Baltierra N, Rucker AJ, & Wilson P. (2015). HealthMpowerment. org: building community through a mobile-optimized, online health promotion intervention. Health Education & Behavior, 42(4), 493–499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Iribarren SJ, Ghazzawi A, Sheinfil AZ, Frasca T, Brown W, Lopez-Rios J, … & Giguere R. (2018). Mixed-method evaluation of social media-based tools and traditional strategies to recruit high-risk and hard-to-reach populations into an HIV prevention intervention study. AIDS and Behavior, 22(1), 347–357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kaufman MR, Cornish F, Zimmerman RS, & Johnson BT (2014). Health behavior change models for HIV prevention and AIDS care: practical recommendations for a multi-level approach. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 66(Suppl 3), S250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lauby JL, Marks G, Bingham T, Liu KL, Liau A, Stueve A, & Millett GA (2012). Having supportive social relationships is associated with reduced risk of unrecognized HIV infection among black and Latino men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior, 16(3), 508–515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. LeGrand S, Muessig KE, Pike EC, Baltierra N, & Hightow-Weidman LB (2014). If you build it will they come? Addressing social isolation within a technology-based HIV intervention for young black men who have sex with men. AIDS care, 26(9), 1194–1200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ling R, Poorisat T, & Chib A. (2020). Mobile phones and patient referral in Thai rural healthcare: a structuration view. Information, Communication & Society, 23(3), 358–373. [Google Scholar]
  25. Matthews DD, Smith JC, Brown AL, & Malebranche DJ (2016). Reconciling epidemiology and social justice in the public health discourse around the sexual networks of black men who have sex with men. American journal of public health, 106(5), 808–814. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Miner MH, Bockting WO, Romine RS, & Raman S. (2012). Conducting Internet research with the transgender population: Reaching broad samples and collecting valid data. Social science computer review, 30(2), 202–211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Misir P. (2015). Structuration theory: A conceptual framework for HIV/AIDS stigma. Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (JIAPAC), 14(4), 328–334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Muessig KE, Baltierra NB, Pike EC, LeGrand S, & Hightow-Weidman LB (2014). Achieving HIV risk reduction through HealthMpowerment. org, a user-driven eHealth intervention for young Black men who have sex with men and transgender women who have sex with men. Digital culture & education, 6(3), 164. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Preece J. (2001). Sociability and usability in online communities: Determining and measuring success. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20(5), 347–356. [Google Scholar]
  30. Quinn K, & Dickson-Gomez J. (2016). Homonegativity, religiosity, and the intersecting identities of young black men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior, 20(1), 51–64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Riley WT, Rivera DE, Atienza AA, Nilsen W, Allison SM, & Mermelstein R. (2011). Health behavior models in the age of mobile interventions: are our theories up to the task?. Translational behavioral medicine, 1(1), 53–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Roux AVD (2007). Neighborhoods and health: where are we and were do we go from here?. Revue d’epidemiologie et de sante publique, 55(1), 13–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Sang JM, Matthews DD, Meanley SP, Eaton LA, & Stall RD (2018). Assessing HIV stigma on prevention strategies for black men who have sex with men in the United States. AIDS and Behavior, 22(12), 3879–3886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Scott HM, Pollack L, Rebchook GM, Huebner DM, Peterson J, & Kegeles SM (2014). Peer social support is associated with recent HIV testing among young black men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior, 18(5), 913–920. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Sewell WH Jr (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American journal of sociology, 98(1), 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  36. Storholm ED, Huang W, Siconolfi DE, Pollack LM, Carrico AW, Vincent W, … & Kegeles SM (2019). Sources of Resilience as Mediators of the Effect of Minority Stress on Stimulant Use and Sexual Risk Behavior Among Young Black Men who have Sex with Men. AIDS and Behavior, 23(12), 3384–3395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Threats M, Boyd DT, Diaz JE, & Adebayo OW (2020). Deterrents and motivators of HIV testing among young Black men who have sex with men in North Carolina. AIDS care, 1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Tural E. (2017). Organizational Transformations in Community Design Centers: An Analysis through Giddens’ Theory of Structuration Framework. Journal of Community Practice, 25(2), 253–282. [Google Scholar]
  39. Uchitel J, McDade C, Mathew M, Mantri S, Jenson D, & Husain AM (2020). Conversational analysis of consciousness during seizures. Epilepsy & Behavior, 112, 107486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang Y, & Willis E. (2016). Examining theory-based behavior-change constructs, social interaction, and sociability features of the Weight Watchers’ online community. Health Education & Behavior, 43(6), 656–664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Zanin AC, & Piercy CW (2019). The Structuration of Community-Based Mental Health Care: A Duality Analysis of a Volunteer Group’s Local Agency. Qualitative Health Research, 29(2), 184–197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES