We tested a couples HIV testing and counseling (CHTC) intervention with male couples in Atlanta by randomizing eligible couples to receive either CHTC or separate individual voluntary HIV counseling and testing (iVCT). To evaluate the acceptability and safety of CHTC, main outcomes were satisfaction with the intervention and the proportions of couples reporting intimate partner violence (IPV) and relationship dissolution after the service. The results indicated that the service was very acceptable to men (median 7-item index of satisfaction was 34 for CHTC and 35 for iVCT, P = .4). There was no difference in either incident IPV (22% versus 17% for CHTC and iVCT, respectively, P = .6) or relationship dissolution (42% versus 51% for CHTC and iVCT, respectively, P = .5). Based on the preliminary data, CHTC is safe for male couples, and it is equally acceptable to iVCT for men who have main partners.

To respond to the need for new HIV prevention services for men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States, and to respond to new data on the key role of main partnerships in US MSM epidemics, we sought to develop a new service for joint HIV testing of male couples. We used the ADAPT-ITT framework to guide our work. From May 2009 to July 2013, a multiphase process was undertaken to identify an appropriate service as the basis for adaptation, collect data to inform the adaptation, adapt the testing service, develop training materials, test the adapted service, and scale up and evaluate the initial version of the service. We chose to base our adaptation on an African couples HIV testing service that was developed in the 1980s and has been widely disseminated in low- and middle-income countries. Our adaptation was informed by qualitative data collections from MSM and HIV counselors, multiple online surveys of MSM, information gathering from key stakeholders, and theater testing of the adapted service with MSM and HIV counselors. Results of initial testing indicate that the adapted service is highly acceptable to MSM and to HIV counselors, that there are no evident harms (e.g., intimate partner violence, relationship dissolution) associated with the service, and that the service identifies a substantial number of HIV serodiscordant male couples. The story of the development and scale-up of the adapted service illustrates how multiple public and foundation funding sources can collaborate to bring a prevention adaptation from concept to public health application, touching on research, program evaluation, implementation science, and public health program delivery. The result of this process is an adapted couples HIV testing approach, with training materials and handoff from academic partners to public health for assessment of effectiveness and consideration of the potential benefits of implementation; further work is needed to optimally adapt the African couples testing service for use with male–female couples in the United States.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-249) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In the United States, a substantial proportion of HIV transmissions among men who have sex with men (MSM) arise from main sex partners. Couples voluntary HIV testing and counseling (CHTC) is used in many parts of the world with male-female couples, but CHTC has historically not been available in the U.S. and few data exist about the extent of HIV serodiscordance among U.S. male couples. We tested partners in 95 Atlanta male couples (190 men) for HIV. Eligible men were in a relationship for ≥ 3 months and were not known to be HIV-positive. We calculated the prevalence of couples that were seroconcordant HIV-negative, seroconcordant HIV-positive, or HIV serodiscordant. We evaluated differences in the prevalence of HIV serodiscordance by several dyadic characteristics (e.g., duration of relationship, sexual agreements, and history of anal intercourse in the relationship). Overall, among 190 men tested for HIV, 11% (n = 20) were newly identified as HIV-positive. Among the 95 couples, 81% (n = 77) were concordant HIV-negative, 17% (n = 16) were HIV serodiscordant, and 2% (n=2) were concordant HIV-positive. Serodiscordance was not significantly associated with any evaluated dyadic characteristic. The prevalence of undiagnosed HIV serodiscordance among male couples in Atlanta is high. Offering testing to male couples may attract men with a high HIV seropositivity rate to utilize testing services. Based on the global evidence base for CHTC with heterosexual couples and the current evidence of substantial undiagnosed HIV serodiscordance among U.S. MSM, we recommend scale-up of CHTC services for MSM, with ongoing evaluation of acceptability and couples’ serostatus outcomes.

ObjectivesThe BEST3 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3, a cell collection device coupled with the biomarker trefoil factor 3, as a tool for detecting Barrett’s oesophagus, a precursor of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), in primary care. In this nested study, our aim was to understand patient experiences.DesignMixed-methods using questionnaires (including Inventory to Assess Patient Satisfaction, Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-6 and two-item perceived risk) and interviews.Outcome measuresParticipant satisfaction, anxiety and perceived risk of developing OAC.SettingGeneral practices in England.ParticipantsPatients with acid reflux enrolled in the intervention arm of the BEST3 trial and attending the Cytosponge appointment (N=1750).Results1488 patients successfully swallowing the Cytosponge completed the follow-up questionnaires, while 30 were interviewed, including some with an unsuccessful swallow.Overall, participants were satisfied with the Cytosponge test. Several items showed positive ratings, in particular convenience and accessibility, staff’s interpersonal skills and perceived technical competence. The most discomfort was reported during the Cytosponge removal, with more than 60% of participants experiencing gagging. Nevertheless, about 80% were willing to have the procedure again or to recommend it to friends; this was true even for participants experiencing discomfort, as confirmed in the interviews.Median anxiety scores were below the predefined level of clinically significant anxiety and slightly decreased between baseline and follow-up (p < 0.001). Interviews revealed concerns around the ability to swallow, participating in a clinical trial, and waiting for test results.The perceived risk of OAC increased following the Cytosponge appointment (p<0.001). Moreover, interviews suggested that some participants had trouble conceptualising risk and did not understand the relationships between test results, gastro-oesophageal reflux and risk of Barrett’s oesophagus and OAC.ConclusionsWhen delivered during a trial in primary care, the Cytosponge is well accepted and causes little anxiety.Trial registration numberISRCTN68382401.