RESUMEN
It is well known that concerns about sexual risk tend to decline among people in intimate relationships where there is established commitment and trust. In the context of relationships at increased risk for HIV transmission, interactions involving disclosure and partner responsiveness are key to maintaining intimacy and physical safety. This paper explores concepts of risk and sexual intimacy articulated by a community sample of 30 people living with HIV and their intimate relationship partners. Data revealed the shifts in intimate relationship dynamics upon the disclosure of an HIV diagnosis, the importance of intimacy in the context of managing one or both partners' HIV care and responses to new advances in HIV prophylaxis. Findings suggest that participants' experiences of self-disclosure and partner responsiveness most often resulted in an increased sense of protectiveness from and for partners. This suggests that health-promoting messaging should be adapted to be more relevant to intimate couple communication and mutual support.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This paper examines peer recruitment dynamics through respondent driven sampling (RDS) with a sample of injection drug users in Hartford, CT to understand the strategies participants use to recruit peers into a study and the extent to which these strategies may introduce risks above the ethical limit despite safeguards in RDS. METHODS: Out of 526 injection drug users who participated in a mixed-method RDS methodology evaluation study, a nested sample of 61 participants completed an in-depth semi-structured interview at a 2-month follow-up to explore their experiences with the recruitment process. RESULTS: Findings revealed that participants used a variety of strategies to recruit peers, ranging from one-time interactions to more persistent strategies to encourage participation (e.g., selecting peers that can easily be found and contacted later, following up with peers to remind them of their appointment, accompanying peers to the study site, etc.). Some participants described the more persistent strategies as helpful, while some others experienced these strategies as minor peer pressure, creating a feeling of obligation to participate. Narratives revealed that overall, the probability of experiencing study-related risks remains relatively low for most participants; however, a disconcerting finding was that higher study-related risks (e.g., relationship conflict, loss of relationship, physical fights, violence) were seen for recruits who participated but switched coupons or for recruits who decided not to participate in the study and did not return the coupon to the recruiter. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that peer recruitment practices in RDS generally pose minimal risk, but that peer recruitment may occasionally exceed the ethical limit, and that enhanced safeguards for studies using peer recruitment methods are recommended. Suggestions for possible enhancements are described.