Background
Housing conditions are known as descriptive factors along with a housing instability continuum and have long been associated with physical and psychological health outcomes. Unstably housed persons are known to demonstrate high-risk HIV behaviors. Even as HIV/STI incidence and infectious disease morbidity and mortality go hand in hand with housing instability, it has not been thoroughly acknowledged or addressed along a housing instability continuum for Sero-Discordant Couples.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to identify how various levels of housing instability influence HIV risk in a sample of African-American heterosexual Sero-Discordant Couples, after controlling for HIV risk factors and socio-demographic variables across different housing status categories using secondary data from the EBAN study.
Methods
Multivariate logistic regression models were used to analyze the association between housing instability on: HIV infection; STI status and partner concurrency.
Results
After controlling for covariates, adjusted odds ratios for primary outcomes revealed persons living with family members had a 48% decrease in likelihood of being HIV+ when compared to stably housed participants, yet they were 2.4 times more likely to be HIV+ than those who were living with a partner. Individuals living with a partner had a 78% decrease in likelihood of HIV+ status compared to stably housed participants.
Conclusion
Our findings suggest that housing instability occurs along a continuum that increases or decreases sexual risk. As persons live in situations that seem more vulnerable, their level of risk may increase; housing instability and subsequent risk outcomes require further study.
Homelessness is a major public health problem in the United States and it has largely been associated with an increase in the cost of housing [1], however, the causes of homelessness include housing conditions, welfare program administration, employment status, as well as individual predictors such as childhood exposures to physical, sexual, or substance abuse; childhood neglect; domestic violence; mental illness; sexual orientation, death of a family members and others [2-4]. Recent estimates from the National Alliance to End Homelessness suggest a national rate of homelessness of 17.7 homeless people/10,000 people in the general population [5].
Housing conditions including where, how, and with whom persons live are known as descriptive factors along with a housing instability continuum and have long been associated with physical and psychological health outcomes. Homelessness refers to not having a place to reside and can be defined as the housing deprivation in its most severe form [6], and on the other hand, unstably housed are those that may have a place to live but might be in an economically o socially insecure situation that put them at risk of not having a secure place to live. Those suffering from unstable housing can either be associated with shelters; living “doubled up”; exchanging sex for shelter, or residing in single room units or transitional housing [4]. Unsheltered living (emergency shelters or street living), renders persons the most vulnerable. Housing instability (being unstably housed) may lead to homelessness. For the purpose of this study, unstably housed/or housing instability continuum includes the homeless populations.
Evidence suggest that those who are unstably housed have riskier sexual behaviors associated with high-risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) such as, injection drug use, greater number of sex partners and unprotected vaginal and anal sex-at a rate of four to six times higher than that of their housed peers [7-9]. Clinical studies suggest a relation between homelessness and unstable housed people having lower odds of Viral Load (VL) non-detectability after adjusting to age, ethnicity and drug use [9]. More specifically, those experiencing unstable housing and who are sexually active report close to seventy five percent having unprotected sex, and among those persons who were HIV positive, and 57.1% reported less than 100% Antiretroviral (ARV) adherence [10,11]. Gender differences regarding high sexual risk practices exist. Unstably housed men report having earlier onset of sexual debut, greater partner concurrency, and engaging in more survival sex relative to women. Conversely, females report less condom use and more sexual transmitted infections associated with substance abuse and low social support [12,13].
Even as HIV incidence and other Sexual Transmitted Diseases (STDs) morbidity and mortality go hand in hand with housing instability it has not thoroughly acknowledged or addressed in a housing instability continuum for Sero-Discordant Couples [14]. Sero-Discordant Couples are couples with one person who is HIV-positive and one who is HIV-negative. Studies in HIV Sero-Discordant Couples provide crucial evidence on the role of antiretroviral therapy and viral load suppression to reduce the risk of HIV transmission, however they are scarce. For example, an HIV-positive partner might focus on not infecting their partner by adhering to treatment, while the HIV-negative partner may concentrate on taking care of the other person. Some evidence on the viral loads and HIV transmission risk in HIV Sero-Discordant Couples suggest that having a drug addiction and living with nonfamily members are the most significant predictors to explaining sexual risk among newly homeless or unstably housed youth [15]. Viral load on HIV transmission risk in HIV-Sero-Discordant male homosexual couples suggest, however that HIV transmission in the context of viral suppression is very low in an international sample [16], while in the US evidence suggest a strong inverse association between housing instability and viral suppression across a spectrum of unstable housing arrangements [17].
The purpose of this study is to identify how various levels of housing instability influence HIV risk in a sample of African American heterosexual Sero-Discordant Couples, after controlling for HIV risk factors and socio demographic variables across different housing status categories using secondary data.
Site |
Total participants No (%) |
Total No. Cohort Group (%) |
Total No. Couples (RR-HP)* No (%) |
HIV-Positive Partner No (%)+ |
|
Male |
Female |
||||
All Sites |
1070 (100) |
110 (147) |
535 (260-275) |
212 (40) |
323 (60) |
New York, NY |
442 (41.31) |
40 (58) |
221 (104-117) |
79 (36) |
124 (64) |
Atlanta, GA |
234 (21.87) |
27 (33) |
117 (57-60) |
49 (42) |
68 (58) |
Los Angeles, CA |
200 (18.69) |
24 (30) |
100 (52-48) |
42 (42) |
58 (58) |
Philadelphia, PA |
194 (18.13) |
19 (26) |
97 (47-50) |
42 (43) |
55 (57) |
Table 1: Project EBAN recruitment and clinical sites description.
From: [19]
*Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) cluster of African American HIV- Sero-Discordant recruited allocated to the EBAN HIV/STD Risk Reduction or the Health Promotion (RR-HP) comparison group.
+Distribution by gender of the HIV positive diagnoses of the Sero-Discordant Couples recruited in the RR-HP.
This study specifically hypothesizes: 1) housing instability has an effect on sexual risk after controlling for HIV risk covariates; and 2) along a continuum, those with increased housing instability exhibit the most sexual behavior risk. In addition, tested for gender differences, and if additional housing members affected HIV risk behaviors.
The sample used in the analyses was of 1063 people. Of the 1070 sample of the parent study, 7 participants did not respond to the housing questions, and therefore were excluded from the data analysis.
Of 1063 participants, 605 (57%) were stably housed and 458 (43%) were unstably housed. Of 458 unstably housed participants, 104 (23%) lived with a family member, 189 (41%) lived with his/her sexual partner, and 165 (36%) lived in a rooming house, single room, group living arrangement, welfare-type living, or were unsheltered (“other living arrangement”). Baseline characteristics between participants in varying housing groups were dissimilar and, subsequently, statistically significant in more women (57%) were stably housed than men (43%), (x2=49.15, p=0.000); the greatest within-group disparity among women’s and men’s housing groups were those who were stably housed (women: 65%, men 49%) and those living with a sexual partner (women: 10%, men: 26%).
As shown in table 2, bivariate analysis showed there were statistically significant differences in sexual risk behaviors based upon housing status. Specifically, dichotomized and grouped housing variables show there is significant at p < 0.05 difference between the expected and observed result for HIV and STI status. After controlling for covariates, adjusted odds ratios for primary outcomes revealed persons living with family members had a 48% decrease in likelihood of being HIV+ when compared to stably housed participants, yet they were 2.4 times more likely to be HIV+ than those who were living with a partner. Individuals living with a partner had a 78% decrease in likelihood of HIV+ status compared to stably housed participants. Persons living in group or unsheltered accommodations had a 44% decrease in likelihood of being HIV+ when compared to stably housed, yet they were 2.6 times more likely to be HIV+ than those who were living with a partner and 1.08 times more likely to be HIV+ than those who were living with family members. Similarly, persons living with family members had a 15% decrease in likelihood of being STI+ when compared to stably housed participants, though this result did not reach statistical significance?
|
Full Sample |
Stably Housed |
Unstably Housed |
|||
|
|
Living w/family |
Living w/partner |
Living w/other |
P Value |
|
Group totals (n) |
1063 (100) |
605 (57) |
104 (10) |
189 (18) |
165 (15) |
- |
Dependent Variables (n, %) |
||||||
HIV + |
532 (50) |
364 (68.5) |
48 (9) |
40 (21) |
80 (15) |
0.000 |
|
|
364 (68.5) |
167 (31) |
|
0.000^* |
|
STI + |
148 (14) |
72 (49) |
13 (9) |
32 (22) |
31 (21) |
0.061 |
|
|
72(49) |
76 (51) |
|
0.026^* |
|
Concurrent partners |
195 (18) |
72 (49) |
24 (12) |
33 (17) |
34 (17) |
0.455 |
Times unprotected sex (mean, SD) |
- |
15 (27) |
14 (26) ~ |
|
0.964^ |
|
Independent variables (n, %) |
||||||
Persons living with you |
||||||
Alone |
341 (32) |
212 (62) |
4 (1) |
77 (23) |
48 (14) |
0.000 |
Spouse |
337 (31) |
220 (65) |
26 (8) |
55 (16) |
36 (11) |
0.000 |
Your own children |
348 (33) |
227 (65) |
38 (11) |
66 (19) |
17 (5) |
0.000 |
One or both parents |
66 (6) |
13 (20) |
43 (65) |
8 (12) |
2 (3) |
0.000 |
One or more siblings |
39 (3) |
12 (31) |
21 (54) |
5 (13) |
1 (2) |
0.000 |
Other relative (s) |
63 (5) |
20 (32) |
27 (43) |
7 (11) |
9 (14) |
0.000 |
Roommate(s) non-related |
60 (4) |
14 (23) |
2 (3) |
3 (5) |
41 (68) |
0.000 |
Non-spouse sex partner |
75 (7) |
48 (64) |
4 (5) |
15 (20) |
8 (11) |
0.000 |
Supervised living arrangement |
22 (2) |
2 (9) |
1 (5) |
1 (5) |
18 (82) |
0.000 |
Other (i.e. institutionalized) |
21 (2) |
3 (14) |
1 (5) |
2 (10) |
15 (71) |
0.000 |
Covariates (n, %) |
||||||
Gender |
||||||
Female |
532 (50) |
346 (65) |
53 (10) |
53 (10) |
80 (15) |
0.000 |
Age (mean, SD) |
- |
44 (8) |
43(8) |
|
|
0.012^ |
Marital status |
||||||
Married to study partner |
345 (32.5) |
235 (68) |
30 (9) |
40 (12) |
40 (12) |
0.000 |
Educational status |
||||||
No formal schooling |
763 (72) |
410 (55) |
84 (11) |
147 (19) |
122 (16) |
0.005 |
Employment |
||||||
Unemployed |
759 (72) |
417 (55) |
80 (10) |
122 (16) |
140 (19) |
0.000 |
Monthly income |
||||||
$0-850/month |
753 (71) |
385 (51) |
87 (12) |
149 (20) |
132 (17) |
0.000 |
Insured (No) |
261 (25) |
103 (39) |
36 (14) |
68 (26) |
54 (21) |
0.000 |
Have dependents (Yes) |
521 (49) |
321 (62) |
49 (9) |
93 (18) |
58 (11) |
0.000 |
Incarceration previous 3 months (yes) |
661 (62) |
346 (52) |
64 (10) |
135 (20) |
116 (18) |
0.000 |
Received HIV medical care 6 months |
475 (45) |
335 (71) |
41 (9) |
32 (7) |
67 (14) |
0.005 |
Knowledge CD4 count (yes) |
365 (34) |
254 (70) |
32 (9) |
25 (7) |
54 (15) |
0.587 |
Knowledge viral load (yes) |
292 (27) |
212 (73) |
24 (8) |
18 (6) |
38 (13) |
0.096 |
Inpatient drug txt 3 months (yes) |
554 (52) |
311 (56) |
49 (9) |
88 (16) |
106 (19) |
0.005 |
Table 2: Describes the study sample, and distribution in dependent and independent variables.
Numbers rounded
~Missing data on the different categories of unstable housing
^bivariate analysis of dichotomous variables t-test
*Statistically significant p < 0.005
Individuals living with a partner were nearly 3 times more likely to be STI+ compared to stably housed participants (AOR=2.687, p=0.007) table 3. Participants living with partners were 1.28 times more likely to be STI+ compared to persons in group or unsheltered living arrangements and 2.7 times more likely to have an STI compared to those living with family members. Persons living in group or unsheltered accommodations were 2 times more likely to be positive for an STI compared to stably housed participants and were 2 times more likely to have an STI compared to persons living with family members.
Risk |
AORa |
95% CIb |
|
HIV Seropositive |
|||
Living with family |
.5163* |
.2782 |
.9583 |
Living with partner |
.2159** |
.1247 |
.3738 |
Living with other |
.5604* |
.317 |
.9905 |
STI Positive |
|||
Living with family |
.9985 |
.4205 |
2.370 |
Living with partner |
2.687** |
1.317 |
5.482 |
Living with other |
2.088* |
1.001 |
4.358 |
Partner Concurrencyc |
|||
Living with family |
1.118 |
.5053 |
2.477 |
Living with partner |
.7762 |
.3921 |
1.536 |
Living with other |
.5949 |
.2754 |
1.285 |
Unprotected Sexc |
|||
Living with family |
2.506d |
.9826 |
6.393 |
Living with partner |
.2865**d |
.1107 |
.7413 |
Living with other |
2.336*d |
1.006 |
5.422 |
p<0.01
The results of this study revealed that housing instability has a statistically significant association with HIV status and sexual risk behavior. For each sexual risk outcome, housing instability (solely or when combined with an interaction term) was statistically significant as an exposure attributing to additional risk behaviors. These findings are consistent with epidemiological data showing an association between HIV status outcomes with housing instability. This study’s sample had a sixty eight percent of HIV- seropositives owned or rented their own homes. Equally, HIV-positive persons within this analysis were more likely to be older; being in a relationship with his or her partner for a longer time and were more likely to have known their status for nearly 1.5 years longer than unstably housed persons. Conversely, unstably housed groups were more at risk for positive STI status, partner concurrency, and number of unprotected sex acts. This merely confirms, along with previous literature, that after controlling for HIV risk covariates, housing instability hails as a statistically significant exposure variable for HIV and sexual risk behaviors.
The bivariate and multivariate analysis suggests that housing instability led to a significant decrease in HIV+ serostatus. This result is contrary to previous literature which documents housing instability should have a positive association with HIV status and, thus, risk for HIV-positive serostatus should increase as housing instability increases. These results may be explained as the study sample had more HIV+ women who were stable housed, while their male partners reported being unstably housed and were HIV-. Gender differences regarding high-risk sexual practices and factors that contribute to such risk are clearly demonstrated in the literature. Unstably housed men report having earlier onset of sexual debut, greater partner concurrency, and engaging in more survival sex relative to women. Conversely, females report less condom use and more STIs associated with substance abuse and low social support [20,21].
Our findings suggest that housing instability has a continuum that increases or decreases sexual risk. We proposed that housing instability and subsequent risk outcomes occur along a continuum. As persons live in situations that seem more vulnerable, their level of risk would increase. This work purported housing stability and risk along this continuum (from least risk to most risk): 1) stably housed, 2) living with family members, 3) living with partner, and 4) living in group or unsheltered accommodations. Our findings support that a continuum exists; however, it fails to establish groups that place participants at most or least risk consistently across outcomes. A potential limitation is that different behavioral, social, and structural factors impact behaviors-for instance, factors that place a person at risk for partner concurrency may be different than those that lead to unprotected sex.
Overall, our findings suggest that a better understanding is needed of what are the different permutations and granularity of unstable housing and how it relates with HIV risk. The over simplification of living arrangements may mislead findings on the risk factors for HIV and may misrepresent a vulnerable group in great need of public health and health services.
Due to the cross-sectional study design, it is difficult to estimate causality and to generalize the results across African American generally or to sero discordant heterosexual couples. Equally, co-variation of cause and effect could not be well established as the time when unstable housing began was unknown in relation to HIV onset for the seropositive individuals. Future research would do well to relate the health behavior and biological HIV-related health outcomes with qualitative research to understand the continuum of housing instability, social support, and where and with whom a person lives.
Citation: Daniel T, Roldós MI (2019) The Effect of Housing Instability on Risky Sexual Behavior and HIV and STIs for a Sample of African American Sero-Discordant Couples. J Community Med Public Health Care 6: 043.
Copyright: © 2019 Tamu Daniel, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.