Incarceration,HIV Risk–Related Behaviors,and Partner Characteristics Among Heterosexual Men at Increased Risk of HIV Infection,20 US Cities

Abstract

Objectives:

The effect of incarceration on HIV risk–related behaviors among at-risk heterosexual men is understudied. The objective of our study was to examine the association between incarceration and HIV risk–related behaviors among a sample of predominantly non-Hispanic black and Hispanic heterosexual men residing in urban areas in the United States with a high prevalence of AIDS.

Methods:

We analyzed data from the 2013 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance system on 5321 at-risk heterosexual men using log-linked Poisson regression models, adjusted for demographic characteristics and clustered on city.

Results:

Of 5321 men, 1417 (26.6%) had recently been incarcerated (in the past 12 months), 2781 (52.3%) had ever been incarcerated but not in the past 12 months, and 1123 (21.1%) had never been incarcerated. Recent incarceration was associated with multiple casual female sexual partners (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.44), condomless sex with multiple female sexual partners (aPR = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.06-1.66), injection drug use (aPR = 3.75; 95% CI, 2.64-5.32), and having sexual partners who were more likely to have ever injected drugs (aPR = 1.84; 95% CI, 1.48-2.28), been incarcerated (aPR = 2.28; 95% CI, 2.01-2.59), or had a concurrent sexual partner (aPR = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11), as compared with never-incarcerated men.

Conclusions:

Incarceration history was associated with HIV risk–related behaviors among heterosexual men from urban areas in the United States. Correctional rehabilitation initiatives are needed to promote strategies that mitigate HIV risk–related behaviors and promote healthy reentry into communities among heterosexual men at high risk for HIV.

Keywords

HIV infections sexual behavior prisoners risk factors epidemiology poverty

In the United States, HIV infection disproportionately affects black and Hispanic/Latino persons of low socioeconomic status (SES).¹ Black and Hispanic/Latino men of low SES from urban communities are also disproportionately incarcerated in the United States.^2,3 In 2016, of 1 106 096 male state and federal prisoners, 34.9% were non-Hispanic black, 21.1% were Hispanic/Latino, and 30.6% were non-Hispanic white (the remaining 13.4% were of another race/ethnicity than those listed or identified themselves as being multiracial).⁴ In comparison, according to the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, non-Hispanic black and Hispanic/Latino persons compose 12% and 18% of the general US population, respectively, and non-Hispanic white people compose 61% of the population.⁵

From 2010 to 2015, the HIV infection rate among state and federal inmates declined from 1.8% to 1.3%, but the rates were still about 3 times higher than the rate in the general US population (0.5%).^6,7 During that same period, the prevalence of HIV infection in some state prisons in Florida, Louisiana, and New York was >3%, which was 10 times the rate in the general US population.^6,7 Almost all inmates with HIV become infected while in the community, where they engage in risk-related behaviors and encounter barriers to accessing prevention and treatment resources.^8,9

HIV research among men largely focuses on men who have sex with men (MSM) or men who inject drugs, whereas the HIV risk among heterosexual men in the United States is largely understudied.^9
-11 Research suggests that the HIV risk for heterosexual men is a major concern in low-income, urban black communities, where rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV are disproportionately high.⁹ Of the 3037 new HIV cases attributed to heterosexual contact among men in 2016, black men accounted for 63% (n = 1926) and Hispanic/Latino men accounted for 19% (n = 581) of cases.¹²

Incarceration can increase the risk of HIV among heterosexual men in several ways.^13

-17 Incarceration engenders housing instability, a well-known structural barrier to HIV prevention efforts,^18,19 and disrupts sexual networks, which increases the occurrence of concurrent and multiple sexual relationships,²⁰ STIs, and syringe sharing.^16,21,22 A 2014 study of black patients attending an STI clinic found that a history of incarceration and unstable housing interacted to increase the risk of having multiple sexual partners and condomless sex.²³ Recidivism is common, so inmates frequently move between prison or jail and their home communities, which may exacerbate social and economic instability.²⁴ Still, studies on incarceration and HIV risk among low-income heterosexual men in the United States are scant.⁸ Understanding the prevalence of incarceration and its association with sexual and substance-use behaviors, health services use, and HIV infection among this population is important.

The objective of our study was to use recent national behavioral surveillance data to examine the association between incarceration and HIV risk–related behaviors among heterosexual men from urban areas in the United States with a high prevalence of AIDS, determine the prevalence of past and recent incarceration among heterosexual men from these areas and compare HIV-related behaviors and HIV infection rates among men who have a history of incarceration with risk behaviors and HIV rates of men without such a history.

Methods

Sample and Procedures

We used data from the 2013 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS) system,²⁵ which surveys heterosexual men and women at increased risk for HIV infection from high-poverty communities in 20 metropolitan statistical areas with a high prevalence of AIDS (Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Chicago, Illinois; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Detroit, Michigan; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; Nassau-Suffolk, New York; New Orleans, Louisiana; New York, New York; Newark, New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; San Diego, California; San Francisco, California; San Juan, Puerto Rico; Seattle, Washington; and Washington, DC). Details on recruitment methods are provided elsewhere.²⁶

Respondents were recruited using respondent-driven sampling, a peer-referral, social network–based sampling method primarily used to study hard-to-reach populations.²⁷ Eligibility was restricted to adults aged 18-60 who lived in the participating metropolitan statistical areas, completed the survey in English or Spanish, and reported vaginal or anal sex with an opposite-sex partner in the previous 12 months. The recruitment process continued until the sample size of heterosexual men and women of low SES was reached (n = 10 682) or the sampling period ended. Low SES was defined as having completed no more than a high school education or having a household income at or below the federal poverty level.²⁸ Details on recruitment methods are provided elsewhere.¹²

After we obtained informed consent, we interviewed 8104 male and female respondents about sexual behaviors, drug use, HIV testing, and use of HIV prevention services by using a standardized, anonymous questionnaire. Interviewers administered the survey in person by using a portable computer. The survey included questions about respondents’ demographic characteristics, sexual and drug-use behaviors, HIV testing history, hepatitis vaccination status, STI diagnoses, and use of HIV behavioral interventions. Interviews averaged 32 minutes, and survey participants received $25 in cash or a gift certificate for the interview, as well as an additional $25 if they agreed to the HIV test.

All men and women who agreed to be interviewed were offered anonymous HIV testing, regardless of self-reported HIV infection status. Testing was performed by collecting blood or oral specimens for either rapid testing in the field followed by laboratory confirmation or by laboratory-based testing. We considered a nonreactive rapid test result to be a definitive negative result and a reactive (preliminary positive) rapid test result to be a definitive positive result only when confirmed by supplemental laboratory testing (eg, Western blot, immunofluorescence assay, or nucleic acid amplification test).

The present study focused on the outcomes of male NHBS participants. Local institutional review boards in each participating city approved all NHBS activities, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention approved the protocol.

Variables

Incarceration was defined as being held in a detention center, jail, or prison for more than 24 hours. Respondents were classified in 3 mutually exclusive categories: “never incarcerated,” “recently incarcerated” if detained during the previous 12 months, or “incarcerated in the past” if detained more than 1 year before the interview. This definition included men who had served a prison sentence and men who were detained for various reasons but against whom criminal charges may not have been filed.

Age, race/ethnicity, education, poverty, homelessness, and region of residence were regarded as potential confounders. Men who self-identified as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, white, and of multiple races were grouped as “non-Hispanic other” given the small sizes of each group.

Outcomes included the following: sexual risk behaviors with female partners (total number of female sexual partners, casual sexual partners, and casual condomless vaginal sexual partners), sex with another man, characteristics of most recent sexual partner (ever injected drugs, ever incarcerated, ever had a concurrent sexual partner), non-injection drug use, HIV testing, HIV status (based on the results of the test offered during the interview), and any STI diagnosis, all within the previous 12 months. Casual sexual partners were defined as women with whom respondents reported having vaginal, oral, or anal sex but to whom they did not feel committed. We dichotomized continuous responses into 1 or 2 partners and ≥3 partners. We based a positive history of STI on self-reports of receiving a diagnosis of chlamydia, gonorrhea, or syphilis during the previous 12 months. We recoded responses of “definitely did/probably did” as “yes” and “definitely did not/probably did not” as “no.” We examined the type of facility where the respondent reported receiving his most recent HIV test and whether recently jailed respondents reported being tested for HIV while incarcerated.

Statistical Methods

We analyzed data only from 5321 at-risk men who (1) had a valid HIV test result and (2) completed responses for all variables in the analysis. Data were based on respondent-driven sampling, in which respondents recruit other potential respondents in their friendship networks, forming recruitment chains in which respondents are clustered by peer groups. Due to the respondent-driven sampling structure of the data, observations in the same network were not independent. To account for respondent-driven sampling, we used a separate, log-linked Poisson regression model with generalized estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation matrix,^29,30 accounting for the non-independence of network data by clustering on recruitment chain,^31,32 to assess the association between incarceration history and each group of outcomes, that is, sociodemographic characteristics and HIV risk–related behaviors. An exchangeable correlation matrix is based on the assumption that all variances and covariances are equal in a model. We included respondents’ city and personal social network size in each model to adjust for variation within cities and intraclass correlations associated with respondent-driven sampling. We assessed differences in sociodemographic characteristics by using the Wald χ² test, with P < .05 considered significant.

To assess the independent association between incarceration and each outcome, we estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by including in each model the sociodemographic characteristics associated with incarceration in the Wald χ² test. We included the following characteristics: race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, non-Hispanic other), age group (18-24, 25-29, 30-39, 40-49, ≥50), education (<high school diploma, high school diploma, at least some college), and income relative to the federal poverty level. We included the same confounders in all models. For the outcome of the most recent HIV test, we excluded 80 respondents who tested positive more than 12 months before the interview and were aware of their status. We used a 2-tailed test of significance, with α < .05 considered significant. We used SAS version 9.4³³ to conduct all statistical analyses.

Results

Of the 5321 at-risk heterosexual men in the analysis, 4198 (78.9%) had been incarcerated, including 1417 (26.6%) who were recently incarcerated and 2781 (52.3%) who were incarcerated in the past (Table 1). The following sociodemographic groups of men had the highest percentages of recent incarceration: non-Hispanic other (n = 173/550, 31.5%), aged 25-29 (n = 182/521, 34.9%), homeless (n = 629/1734, 36.7%), men with <high school diploma (n = 487/1571, 31.0%), and men with annual income at or below the federal poverty level (n = 1133/4076, 27.8%) (Table 1). Of 1417 recently incarcerated men, 524 (36.9%) reported receiving an HIV test while incarcerated.

Table 1.

Incarceration status of heterosexual men at increased risk of HIV infection, by sociodemographic characteristics, National HIV Behavioral Surveillance system, 20 US cities, 2013^a

Characteristics		Incarceration Status, No. (%)^b
Characteristics	All Men (N = 5321), No.	Never Incarcerated^c (n = 1123)	Incarcerated in the Past^c (n = 2781)	Recently Incarcerated^c (n = 1417)	P Value^d
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic black	3878	723 (18.6)	2111 (54.4)	1044 (26.9)	<.01
Hispanic/Latino^e	887	289 (32.6)	402 (45.3)	196 (22.1)
Non-Hispanic other^f	550	110 (20.0)	267 (48.6)	173 (31.5)
Age group, y
18-24	1026	467 (45.5)	266 (25.9)	293 (28.6)	<.001
25-29	521	126 (24.2)	213 (40.9)	182 (34.9)
30-39	970	142 (14.6)	523 (53.9)	305 (31.4)
40-49	1280	160 (12.5)	781 (61.0)	339 (26.5)
≥50	1524	228 (15.0)	998 (65.5)	298 (19.6)
Education
<High school diploma	1571	242 (15.4)	842 (53.6)	487 (31.0)	<.001
High school diploma or equivalent	2553	598 (23.4)	1289 (50.5)	666 (26.1)
At least some college	1197	283 (23.6)	650 (54.3)	264 (22.1)
Annual household income^g
≤Federal poverty level	4076	784 (19.2)	2159 (53.0)	1133 (27.8)	<.001
>Federal poverty level	1198	327 (27.3)	604 (50.4)	267 (22.3)	<.001
Homeless
No	3587	921 (25.7)	1878 (52.4)	788 (22.0)	<.001
Yes^h	1734	202 (11.7)	903 (52.1)	629 (36.7)	<.001
US regionⁱ
Northeast	1276	303 (23.8)	657 (51.5)	316 (24.8)	NS
South	1938	347 (17.9)	1008 (52.0)	583 (30.1)
Midwest	578	139 (24.1)	316 (54.7)	123 (21.3)
West	1529	334 (21.8)	800 (52.3)	395 (25.8)

Abbreviation: NS, not significant.

^aData source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.¹²

^bPercentages are row percentages.

^cRecently incarcerated means held in a detention center, jail, or prison for more than 24 hours within the past year. Incarcerated in the past means ever detained for more than 24 hours but not within the past year. Never incarcerated means never detained for more than 24 hours. All 3 categories are mutually exclusive.

^dUsing the Wald χ² test. P values obtained from generalized estimating equations clustered on recruitment chains. P < .05 was considered significant.

^eHispanic/Latino can be of any race.

^fIncludes non-Hispanic white, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and multiple races.

^gPoverty level is based on household income and household size using the US Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines. These guidelines are updated periodically in the Federal Register by the US Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 USC 9902(2).²⁸

^hIncludes currently homeless and homeless within past year.

ⁱNortheast: Boston, Massachusetts; Nassau-Suffolk, New York; New York, New York; Newark, New Jersey; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. South: Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Dallas, Texas; Houston, Texas; Miami, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and Washington, DC. Midwest: Chicago, Illinois, and Detroit, Michigan. West: Denver, Colorado; Los Angeles, California; San Diego, California; San Francisco, California; and Seattle, Washington.

Individual Risk-Related Behaviors and HIV Prevalence

Compared with never-incarcerated men, men who had been incarcerated (in the past or recently) were significantly more likely to report having ≥3 casual female sexual partners, engaging in injection drug use, having an STI diagnosis, and being tested for HIV in the past 12 months, after adjusting for other characteristics (Table 2). Compared with never-incarcerated men, men incarcerated in the past (aPR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.08-1.35) and recently incarcerated men (aPR = 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.44) were significantly more likely to report having multiple casual female sexual partners in the past 12 months. Similarly, recently incarcerated men were significantly more likely than never-incarcerated men to report multiple casual condomless vaginal sexual partners in the past 12 months (aPR = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.06-1.66). Men incarcerated in the past (aPR = 2.14; 95% CI, 1.63-2.81) and recently incarcerated men (aPR = 3.75; 95% CI, 2.64-5.32) were significantly more likely than never-incarcerated men to report injection drug use in the past 12 months.

Table 2.

Selected HIV risk–related outcomes of heterosexual men at increased risk of HIV infection, by incarceration status, National HIV Behavioral Surveillance system, 20 US cities, 2013^a

		Incarceration Status, No. (%)			Adjusted Prevalence Ratio (95% CI)^c,d
Risk Behavior	All Men (N = 5321), No. (%)	Never Incarcerated^b (n = 1123)	Incarcerated in the Past^b (n = 2781)	Recently Incarcerated^b (n = 1417)	Incarcerated in the Past vs Never Incarcerated	Recently Incarcerated vs Never Incarcerated
Female sexual partners in past 12 months, no.
1 or 2	2101 (39.3)	489 (43.5)	1138 (40.9)	474 (33.5)	—^e	—^e
≥3	3220 (60.7)	634 (56.5)	1643 (59.1)	943 (66.6)	1.08 (0.93-1.25)	1.10 (0.93-1.31)
Casual^f female sexual partners in past 12 months, no.
1 or 2	2839 (53.6)	674 (60.0)	1501 (54.0)	664 (46.9)	—^e	—^e
≥3	2482 (46.4)	449 (40.0)	1280 (46.0)	753 (53.1)	1.21 (1.08-1.35)^g	1.23 (1.05-1.44)^g
Casual condomless vaginal sexual partners in past 12 months, no.
1 or 2	3797 (72.0)	889 (79.2)	1974 (71.0)	934 (65.9)	—^e	—^e
≥3	1523 (28.0)	234 (20.8)	806 (29.0)	483 (34.1)	1.19 (0.99-1.43)	1.32 (1.06-1.66)^g
Had sex with another man in past 12 months
No	4986 (93.8)	1074 (95.7)	2616 (94.2)	1296 (91.5)	—^e	—^e
Yes	329 (6.2)	48 (4.3)	161 (5.8)	120 (8.5)	1.00 (0.98-1.01)	0.99 (0.97-1.01)
Injection drug use in past 12 months	328 (6.0)	21 (1.9)	163 (5.9)	144 (10.2)	2.14 (1.63-2.81)^g	3.75 (2.64-5.32)^g
STI diagnoses in past 12 months^h	275 (5.5)	41 (3.7)	110 (4.0)	124 (8.8)	1.27 (0.84-1.93)	2.18 (1.52-3.13)^g
Tested for HIV in past 12 monthsⁱ	1808 (34.9)	298 (27.2)	883 (32.6)	627 (45.0)	1.16 (1.02-1.32)^g	1.59 (1.41-1.81)^g
HIV serostatus^j
Positive	160 (2.9)	32 (2.9)	94 (3.4)	34 (2.4)	0.71 (0.43-1.17)	0.64 (0.35-1.20)
Negative	5172 (97.1)	1091 (97.2)	2687 (96.6)	1383 (97.6)	—^e	—^e
Characteristics of most recent sexual partner
Ever injected drugs	713 (13.3)	74 (6.8)	375 (13.9)	264 (19.1)	1.35 (1.10-1.66)^g	1.84 (1.48-2.28)^g
Ever incarcerated	1841 (33.7)	181 (16.6)	1027 (38.4)	633 (46.0)	1.90 (1.66-2.18)^g	2.28 (2.01-2.59)^g
Ever a concurrent sexual partner	2293 (47.0)	400 (38.5)	1181 (46.8)	712 (55.6)	1.03 (1.01-1.06)^g	1.08 (1.05-1.11)^g

Abbreviations: STI, sexually transmitted infection.

^aData source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.¹²

^bRecently incarcerated means held in a detention center, jail, or prison for more than 24 hours within the past year. Incarcerated in the past means ever detained for more than 24 hours but not within past year. Never incarcerated means never detained for more than 24 hours.

^cPrevalence ratios and 95% CIs were obtained from Poisson regression models with generalized estimating equations clustered on recruitment chain and adjusted for participant’s network size.

^dAdjusted for age, race/ethnicity, education, poverty, homelessness, network size, and city.

^eIndicates a reference category for the dichotomous dependent variable in the model (eg, 1 or 2 sexual partners = 0 [reference]; ≥3 = 1).

^fA person with whom the participant had sex but to whom he did not feel committed or whom he did not know very well or with whom the participant had sex in exchange for something, such as money or drugs.

^gSignificant at P < .05.

^hRespondent reported having a diagnosis of gonorrhea, chlamydia, or syphilis in the past year. Limited to those who reported being tested by a physician or other health provider for a bacterial STI (gonorrhea, chlamydia, or syphilis) in the last year of the interview.

ⁱExcluded respondents who were HIV positive and aware of their status.

^jHIV serostatus refers to results from administered HIV test at the time of the interview.

Recently incarcerated men (aPR = 2.18; 95% CI, 1.52-3.13) and men incarcerated in the past (aPR = 1.27; 95% CI, 0.84-1.93) were significantly more likely than never-incarcerated men to report having an STI diagnosis, after adjusting for confounders. Men incarcerated in the past (aPR = 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32) and recently incarcerated men (aPR = 1.59; 95% CI, 1.41-1.81) were also significantly more likely than never-incarcerated men to report an HIV test in the previous 12 months. HIV prevalence did not differ significantly by incarceration history: never (n = 32, 2.9%), past (n = 94, 3.4%), and recent (n = 34, 2.4%).

Risk-Related Behaviors of the Most Recent Sexual Partner

Compared with never-incarcerated men, men incarcerated in the past and recently incarcerated men were significantly more likely to report having a sexual partner who ever injected drugs (incarcerated in the past: aPR = 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10-1.66; recently incarcerated: aPR = 1.84; 95% CI, 1.48-2.28); to report that their last sexual partner had been incarcerated (incarcerated in the past: aPR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.66-2.18; recently incarcerated: aPR = 2.28; 95% CI, 2.01-2.59); and to report that their last sexual partner had a concurrent partner (incarcerated in the past: aPR = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; recently incarcerated: aPR = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11) (Table 2).

Discussion

HIV prevalence did not differ between at-risk heterosexual men with a history of incarceration and men without a history of incarceration. Research shows that HIV risk–related behaviors differ by incarceration history^15,21 and that HIV and STI are associated with risk-related sexual behaviors.¹⁶ However, we found no other study that directly measured HIV serostatus and tested for differences by incarceration history among noninstitutionalized men. A 2017 NHBS study of at-risk heterosexual women found an overall HIV prevalence of 4%; HIV prevalence was higher among recently incarcerated women than among never-incarcerated women.³⁴ A 2010 study using NHBS-MSM data found that HIV prevalence was 11% among black MSM and 3% among non-black MSM, but that study did not test for differences by incarceration history.³⁵ A 2012 study in Baltimore found that the prevalence of STI was 14% among recently incarcerated men, 7% among men incarcerated in the past, and 6% among never-incarcerated men.³⁶

Our findings indicate that additional studies are needed to measure the association between HIV serostatus and incarceration, with measures of duration of incarceration, reason for incarceration, and facility type (eg, jail or prison) among heterosexual men. The lack of association between HIV and incarceration, despite higher odds of risk-related behavior among heterosexual men who reported a history of incarceration, may be due to the role of gender in the sociocultural and biological context of HIV transmission. HIV risk–related behaviors overlap with culturally acceptable displays of male “bad behavior,” including substance use, multiple female sexual partners, and lack of care for health.³⁷ Heterosexual men with a history of incarceration may be more likely in general to engage in HIV risk–related behaviors than men without a history of incarceration. On the other hand, men are less likely to acquire HIV when exposed to the virus by a female partner rather than by a male partner when engaging in sexual risk-related behaviors.³⁷

This study extends the extant literature on incarceration and HIV risk–related behaviors by focusing on at-risk urban heterosexual men, an understudied and hard-to-reach population, and using data from a large national surveillance data set. Our results are consistent with previous findings on the association between incarceration history and concurrent sexual partnerships,^17,35,36,38 multiple sexual partnerships,^36,37,39 STIs,³⁶ condomless sex,^{16,17,21,22,24} and injection drug use.⁴⁰ In addition, we found that heterosexual men with a history of incarceration are embedded in sexual networks of partners who are at risk of acquiring HIV.⁴¹ Incarceration may thus introduce potential at-risk sexual partners into an individual’s sexual network when he or she enters the criminal justice system.^21,36

Social policies that reduce recidivism could directly reduce HIV incidence at the individual and community levels.⁴² Incarceration often disrupts supportive social and economic systems, which can make adhering to HIV risk–reduction behaviors difficult.⁴³ Educational interventions in correctional settings are effective in reducing post-release risk behaviors among inmates.⁴⁴ For example, Project START is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–initiated client-centered intervention for young men being released from prison, with demonstrated efficacy in reducing sexual risk behaviors. Project START was tested at 8 prisons in 4 states (California, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) and found to result in a 60% decrease in unprotected vaginal or anal sex among men who received an enhanced intervention that addressed community reentry needs, compared with men who did not receive the enhanced intervention.⁴⁵ Involvement in the criminal justice system is strongly linked with HIV risk among economically disadvantaged black and Hispanic/Latino men and has deleterious effects on their communities, including social and economic instability and perpetuating HIV transmission.⁴⁶

Strengths and Limitations

This study had several strengths. One strength was the community-based recruitment of at-risk heterosexual men through the NHBS and the use of a validated questionnaire assessing sexual- and drug use–related behaviors. A second strength was that the sampling scheme used by the NHBS allowed for appropriate behavioral risk factor surveillance within this population.

This analysis also had several limitations. First, the NHBS samples low-SES heterosexuals in metropolitan areas; as such, it may not be representative of all heterosexuals in urban environments or non-urban environments. Second, we did not use respondent-driven sampling weights in our analysis; as such, point estimates may have been biased by overrepresented or underrepresented subgroups of the sample. However, we adjusted for potential sampling biases by accounting for recruitment chains and adjusting for respondents’ network size in the Poisson models with generalized estimating equations. Third, data were collected in 2013, and the nature of the study population and the association between the predictors and outcomes may have changed since then. However, we believe the strengths of the study, including the paucity of empirical studies on incarceration and HIV risk among heterosexual men, outweigh this limitation.

Fourth, because an interviewer administered the survey, certain behaviors might have been underreported or overreported. For example, respondents may have underreported socially undesirable behaviors (eg, injection drug use). We did not have data on respondents’ reasons for detainment, so we could not infer whether incarceration was because of reported illegal behaviors, such as injection drug use. In addition, we did not have data on when respondents were incarcerated in relation to their interview date, the length of their incarceration (except that it was at least 24 hours), or whether the respondent was in a local jail or a state or federal prison. These data could provide more information on the association between incarceration and HIV risk. For example, duration of incarceration may be more important than time since incarceration because persons who spend less time incarcerated have more high-risk sexual partners than persons who spend more time incarcerated.¹⁵

Finally, because our data were cross-sectional, we could not infer causality or the temporal nature of the predictor and outcomes. Although our study corroborates previous findings on incarceration and HIV risk, we were not able to determine the temporal relationship between the two. Some longitudinal studies suggest that involvement with the criminal justice system may lead to increased risk-related sexual and drug-use behavior,^18,38 whereas other studies suggest that incarcerated persons have a higher prevalence of such behaviors than the general population before entering the criminal justice system.⁴⁷ Whether HIV risk is greater before or after incarceration is difficult to discern because recidivism is common.⁴⁴

Conclusions

Meeting the needs of recently incarcerated and ever-incarcerated men could directly reduce the incidence of HIV at the individual and community levels. Our findings highlight the need for more initiatives that promote strategies to mitigate HIV risk–related behaviors, correctional rehabilitation, and healthy reentry into communities among heterosexual men at high risk for HIV.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors declared no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Sionean

Binh

Hageman

. HIV risk, prevention, and testing behaviors among heterosexuals at increased risk for HIV infection—National HIV Behavioral Surveillance system, 21 U.S. cities, 2010. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2014;63(14):1–39.

Turney

. Incarceration and social inequality: challenges and directions for future research. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci. 2014;651(1):97–101.

Kaeble

Cowhig

. Correctional Populations in the United States, 2016. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs; 2018. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6226. Accessed November 29, 2018.

Carson

. Prisoners in 2016. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs; 2018. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6187. Accessed November 29, 2018.

US Census Bureau. 2016 American Community Survey 1-year estimates, table B03002. http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed January 10, 2019.

Maruschak

Bronson

. HIV in Prisons, 2015—Statistical Tables. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2017. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6026. Accessed January 14, 2019.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimated HIV incidence and prevalence in the United States, 2010-2015. HIV Surveill Supp Rep. 2018;23(1):1–77.

Spaulding

Stephenson

Macalino

Ruby

Clarke

Flanigan

. Human immunodeficiency virus in correctional facilities: a review. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35(3):305–312. doi:10.1086/341418

Raj

Bowleg

. Heterosexual risk for HIV among black men in the United States: a call to action against a neglected crisis in black communities. Am J Mens Health. 2011;6(3):178–181. doi:10.1177/1557988311416496

10.

Dworkin

. Men at Risk: Masculinity, Heterosexuality and HIV Prevention. New York: New York University Press; 2015.

11.

Henny

Crepaz

Lyles

. Efficacy of HIV/STI behavioral interventions for heterosexual African American men in the United States: a meta-analysis. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(5):1092–1114. doi:10.1007/s10461-011-0100-2

12.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diagnoses of HIV infection in the United States and dependent areas, 2016. HIV Surveill Rep. 2017;28(1):1–125.

13.

Bowleg

Teti

Malebranche

Tschahn

. “It’s an uphill battle everyday”: intersectionality, low-income, black heterosexual men, and implications for HIV prevention research and interventions. Psychol Men Masc. 2013;14(1):25–34. doi:10.1037/a0028392

14.

Bowleg

Raj

. Shared communities, structural contexts, and HIV risk: prioritizing the HIV risk and prevention needs of black heterosexual men. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(suppl 2):S173–S177. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300342

15.

Khan

Miller

Schoenbach

. Timing and duration of incarceration and high-risk sexual partnerships among African Americans in North Carolina. Ann Epidemiol. 2008;18(5):403–410. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2007.12.003

16.

Khan

Epperson

Mateu-Gelabert

Bolyard

Sandoval

Friedman

. Incarceration, sex with an STI- or HIV-infected partner, and infection with an STI or HIV in Bushwick, Brooklyn, NY: a social network perspective. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(6):1110–1117. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.184721

17.

Knittel

Snow

Griffith

Morenoff

. Incarceration and sexual risk: examining the relationship between men’s involvement in the criminal justice system and risky sexual behavior. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(8):2703–2714. doi:10.1007/s10461-013-0421-4

18.

Aidala

Cross

Stall

Harre

Sumartojo

. Housing status and HIV risk behaviors: implications for prevention and policy. AIDS Behav. 2005;9(3):251–265. doi:10.1007/s10461-005-9000-7

19.

Aidala

Sumartojo

. Why housing? AIDS Behav. 2007;11(suppl 2):1–6. doi:10.1007/s10461-007-9302-z

20.

Adimora

Schoenbach

. Social determinants of sexual networks, partnership formation, and sexually transmitted infections. In: Aral

Fenton

Lipshutz

, eds. The New Public Health and STD/HIV Prevention: Personal, Public and Health Systems Approaches. New York: Springer; 2013:13–31.

21.

Khan

Doherty

Schoenbach

Taylor

Epperson

Adimora

. Incarceration and high-risk sex partnerships among men in the United States. J Urban Health. 2009;86(4):584–601. doi:10.1007/s11524-009-9348-5

22.

Milloy

Kerr

Salters

. Incarceration is associated with used syringe lending among active injection drug users with detectable plasma HIV-1 RNA: a longitudinal analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:565. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-13-565

23.

Widman

Noar

Golin

Willoughby

Crosby

. Incarceration and unstable housing interact to predict sexual risk behaviours among African American STD clinic patients. Int J STD AIDS. 2014;25(5):348–354. doi:10.1177/0956462413505999

24.

Spaulding

Seals

Page

Brzozowski

Rhodes

Hammett

. HIV/AIDS among inmates of and releasees from US correctional facilities, 2006: declining share of epidemic but persistent public health opportunity. PLoS One. 2009;4(11):e7558. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007558

25.

DiNenno

Oster

Sionean

Denny

Lansky

. Piloting a system for behavioral surveillance among heterosexuals at increased risk of HIV in the United States. Open AIDS J. 2012;6:169–176. doi:10.2174/1874613601206010169

26.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diagnoses of HIV infection in the United States and dependent areas, 2014. HIV Surveill Rep. 2015;26(1):1–123.

27.

Ramirez-Valles

Heckathorn

Vázquez

Diaz

Campbell

. From networks to populations: the development and application of respondent-driven sampling among IDUs and Latino gay men. AIDS Behav. 2005;9(4):387–402. doi:10.1007/s10461-005-9012-3

28.

US Department of Health and Human Services. 2012 poverty guidelines. Fed Regist. 2012;77(17):4034–4035.

29.

Zou

. A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7):702–706.

30.

Zou

Donner

. Extension of the modified Poisson regression model to prospective studies with correlated binary data. Stat Methods Med Res. 2013;22(6):661–670. doi:10.1177/0962280211427759

31.

Liang

Zeger

. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73(1):13–22.

32.

Wagner

Pollini

Patterson

. Cross-border drug injection relationships among injection drug users in Tijuana, Mexico. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;113(2-3):236–241. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.08.009

33.

SAS Institute, Inc. SAS Version 9.4 for Windows. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc; 2014.

34.

Wise

Finlayson

Nerlander

Sionean

Paz-Bailey

; NHBS Study Group. Incarceration, sexual risk-related behaviors, and HIV infection among women at increased risk of HIV infection, 20 United States cities. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;75(suppl 3):S261–S267. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000001401

35.

Magnus

Kuo

Phillips

. Elevated HIV prevalence despite lower rates of sexual risk behaviors among black men in the District of Columbia who have sex with men. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2010;24(10):615–622. doi:10.1089/apc.2010.0111

36.

Rogers

Khan

Tan

Turner

Miller

Erbelding

. Incarceration, high-risk sexual partnerships and sexually transmitted infections in an urban population. Sex Transm Infect. 2012;88(1):63–68. doi:10.1136/sextrans-2011-050280

37.

Higgins

Hoffman

Dworkin

. Rethinking gender, heterosexual men, and women’s vulnerability to HIV/AIDS. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(3):435–445. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.159723

38.

Adimora

Schoenbach

Doherty

. Concurrent sexual partnerships among men in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(12):2230–2237. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2006.099069

39.

Epperson

Khan

El-Bassel

Gilbert

. Longitudinal study of incarceration and HIV risk among methadone maintained men and their primary female partners. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(2):347–355. doi:10.1007/s10461-009-9660-9

40.

Genberg

Astemborski

Vlahov

Kirk

Mehta

. Incarceration and injection drug use in Baltimore, Maryland. Addiction. 2015;110(7):1152–1159. doi:10.1111/add.12938

41.

Adimora

Schoenbach

. Social context, sexual networks, and racial disparities in rates of sexually transmitted infections. J Infect Dis. 2005;191(suppl 1):S115–S122. doi:10.1086/425280

42.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. High-impact HIV prevention: CDC’s approach to reducing HIV infections in the United States. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/policies_NHPC_Booklet.pdf. Accessed December 15, 2018.

43.

Roberts

. The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African American communities. Stanford Law Rev. 2004;56(5):1271–1305.

44.

Underhill

Dumont

Operario

. HIV prevention for adults with criminal justice involvement: a systematic review of HIV risk-reduction interventions in incarceration and community settings. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(11):e27–e53. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302152

45.

Wolitski

. Relative efficacy of a multisession sexual risk–reduction intervention for young men released from prisons in 4 states. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(10):1854–1861. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.056044

46.

Shubert

. Mass Incarceration, Housing Instability and HIV/AIDS: Research Findings and Policy Recommendations. Washington, DC: National Minority AIDS Council; 2013.

47.

Adams

Kendall

Smith

Quigley

Stuewig

Tangney

. HIV risk behaviors of male and female jail inmates prior to incarceration and one year post-release. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(8):2685–2694. doi:10.1007/s10461-011-9990-2