Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent and pressing public health concern that affects people of all gender and sexual identities. Though studies have identified that male couples may experience IPV at rates as high as or higher than women in heterosexual partnerships, the body of literature addressing this population is still nascent. This study recruited 160 male–male couples in Atlanta, Boston, and Chicago to independently complete individual surveys measuring demographic information, partner violence experience and perpetration, and individual and relationship characteristics that may shape the experience of violence. Forty-six percent of respondents reported experiencing IPV in the past year. Internalized homophobia significantly increased the risk for reporting experiencing, perpetrating, or both for any type of IPV. This study is the first to independently gather data on IPV from both members of male dyads and indicates an association between internalized homophobia and risk for IPV among male couples. The results highlight the unique experiences of IPV in male–male couples and call for further research and programmatic attention to address the exorbitant levels of IPV experienced within some of these partnerships.

BackgroundThe United States health care system remains far from implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's recommendation of routine human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening as part of health care for adults. Although consensus for the importance of screening has grown, innovations in implementing routine screening are still lacking. HIV on the Frontlines of Communities in the United States (FOCUS) was launched in 2010 to provide an environment for testing innovative approaches to routine HIV screening and linkage to care.ObjectiveThe strategy of the FOCUS program was to develop models that maximize the use of information systems, fully integrate HIV screening into clinical practice, transform basic perceptions about routine HIV screening, and capitalize on emerging technologies in health care settings and laboratories.MethodsIn 10 of the most highly impacted cities, the FOCUS program supports 153 partnerships to increase routine HIV screening in clinical and community settings.ResultsFrom program launch in 2010 through October 2013, the partnerships have resulted in a total of 799,573 HIV tests and 0.68% (5425/799,573) tested positive.ConclusionsThe FOCUS program is a unique model that will identify best practices for HIV screening and linkage to care.

BackgroundAn estimated one- to-two-thirds of new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections among US men who have sex with men (MSM) occur within the context of primary partnerships. Despite this fact, there remains a lack of prevention interventions that focus on male sero-discordant dyads. Interventions that provide male couples with skills to manage HIV risk, and to support each other towards active engagement in HIV prevention and care, are urgently needed.ObjectiveThe objective of this paper is to describe the protocol for an innovative dyadic intervention (Stronger Together) that combines couples’ HIV testing and dyadic adherence counseling to improve treatment adherence and engagement in care among HIV sero-discordant male couples in the United States.MethodsThe research activities involve a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) of approximately 165 venue- and clinic-recruited sero-discordant male couples (330 individuals: 165 HIV sero-negative and 165 HIV sero-positive). Couples randomized into the intervention arm receive couples’ HIV counseling and testing plus dyadic adherence counseling, while those randomized to the control arm receive individual HIV counseling and testing. The study takes place in three cities: Atlanta, GA (study site Emory University); Boston, MA (study site The Fenway Institute); and Chicago, IL (study site Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago). Cohort recruitment began in 2015. Couples are followed prospectively for 24 months, with study assessments at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months.ResultsStronger Together was launched in August 2014. To date, 160 couples (97% of the target enrollment) have been enrolled and randomized. The average retention rate across the three sites is 95%. Relationship dissolution has been relatively low, with only 13 couples breaking up during the RCT. Of the 13 couples who have broken up, 10 of the 13 HIV-positive partners have been retained in the cohort; none of these HIV-positive partners have enrolled new partners into the RCT.ConclusionsThe intervention offers a unique opportunity for sero-discordant couples to support each other towards common HIV management goals by facilitating their development of tailored prevention plans via couples-based HIV testing and counseling, as well as problem-solving skills in Partner Strategies to Enhance Problem-solving Skills (STEPS).Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01772992; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01772992 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6szFBVk1R)

Southside and Central Care effectively implemented routine HIV screening programs that dramatically increased their testing volume while also linking the majority of HIV-positive patients to care. Other community health centers should consider similar programs.

Objective: To undertake a census of the healthfulness of food venues providing lunch or dinner meals in a rural Australian setting and compare healthfulness by remoteness, using two measurement tools. Methods: A census of the rural local government area food venues was undertaken using two validated tools: the Healthfulness Rating Classification System (HRCS) and the Nutrition Environment Measures Survey (NEMS‐R). Data were collected covering an area of 3,438 square kilometres in Victoria, Australia, with a population of >21,000. Healthfulness by remoteness was described and variability between tools was explored. Results: Data were collected from all 95 eligible food venues. Both tools classified the food venues as relatively unhealthy. The mean HRCS score was ‐2.9 (unhealthy) and the mean NEMS‐R score was 10.8 (SD 7.0; possible range ‐27 to 64). There were no significant differences in healthiness of venues by remoteness (as measured by the Modified Monash Model), although the outer‐rural region had lower scores. Conclusions: This census of a rural food retail environment showed low access to healthy menu options along with minimal provision of nutrition information and promotion of healthy food in food venues. This environment has the potential to affect the dietary intake of more than 21,000 rural‐dwelling Australians and action to improve rural food environments is desperately needed. Implications for public health: If unhealthful rural food environments are not addressed, inequalities in the diet‐related disease burden for rural Australians will continue to persist. This study shows that interventions are needed for independent venues that could be targeted by researchers, local health promotion officers, community nutritionists or community education programs.