Epidemiological data indicate the need to address substance use and sexual HIV transmission risk among gay and bisexual men in relationships. While brief Motivational Interviewing (MI) delivered to the individual has shown efficacy in reducing sexual HIV risk with casual partners and substance use, the application of MI with couples has received less attention. Most studies of MI with couples have conceptualized the “spouse” or partner as an adjunct participant in the treatment of an identified client. We propose a theoretical framework for conducting MI with a couple, which approaches the couple as the identified client, and may be adopted when either one or both partners engage in the target behavior. We then discuss similarities between MI-processes conceptualized with our proposed framework and those that are salient in existing couples therapies. We utilize case examples from brief MI sessions targeting substance use and sexual HIV risk in gay male couples to illustrate three phenomena unique to the implementation of MI with couples: 1) interpersonal ambivalence; 2) the role of dyadic functioning in tolerating and resolving interpersonal ambivalence; and 3) joint goal formation as a prerequisite to the planning phase of MI. Connecting these phenomena with the transformation of motivation and accommodation processes outlined in Couples Interdependence Theory, this paper suggests that brief MI may be a promising modality for substance use and HIV risk reduction interventions with couples generally and gay couples specifically.

Research suggests connections or links between the mental health of both partners in a romantic relationship, as partners often report similar mental health problems, with implications for relationship functioning. The current study utilized the framework of interdependence theory to explore associations among intimacy development, as conceptualized by Erikson, relationship satisfaction, and depression in a sample of 128 same-sex male couples. In each couple, one partner was recruited first through active or passive outreach conducted online and in-person, and after completion of the online survey, was then invited to send his partner a link to the study. The 256 male respondents (mean age = 32.6 years) all reported a U.S. residence and had an average relationship length of five years. Utilizing the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model, analyses indicated that participants’ intimacy development directly predicted their own relationship satisfaction (B = 1.84, p< .01) as well as their partner’s relationship satisfaction (B = 1.61, p<.01). Similarly, both the actor (B = -0.04, p< .01) and partner (B = -0.04, p< .05) effects of relationship satisfaction on depression were significant. Consistent with the interdependent concept of joint control, three indirect pathways linked Eriksonian intimacy to depression through relationship satisfaction. These findings suggest that individual development may become linked to mental health through pathways involving dyadic functioning. This pattern implies highly inter-connected links between the intra-personal and inter-personal, which have implications for mental health intervention with gay men in relationships.

The efficacy of motivational interviewing (MI) to reduce substance use is well established; however, its use with couples has met with mixed results. The development of such interventions is particularly relevant for male couples, as rates of substance use in this population are comparatively high and use is associated with aspects of sexual relationship functioning. One challenge noted in conducting MI with couples is how to respond to situations in which partners disagree with one another or argue against change. Guided by the couples interdependence theory, we conceptualized conflicts within session as failures in the accommodation process. We used qualitative analysis to examine manifestations of conflict in session and to identify effective provider response strategies. The sample included 14 cis-male couples with at least 1 partner was aged 18 -29 years, reported substance use, and was HIV negative. All couples completed 3 MI sessions lasting 60 -75 min each. Manifestations of conflict included conflation of thoughts/feelings, vague or indirect communication, and inaccurate assumptions. Effective provider responses included correcting assumptions, shifting focus, relationship repair, "common ground" reflections, and relationship affirmations. Observed conflicts aligned with conceptualizations of destructive resolutions to the accommodation process (i.e., exit and neglect). Effective provider responses to conflict facilitated dyadic functioning and catalyzed constructive accommodation. These results provide an initial compendium of provider skills and strategies that may be particularly relevant in work with sexual minority male couples, for whom achieving accommodation around drug use and sexual health goals is often viewed as a key mechanism of intervention.

While many gay couples perceive themselves to have little risk for HIV transmission, research estimates that 35-68% of new HIV infections are transmitted within main partnerships. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is recommended for those partnered gay and bisexual men (GBM) who engage in sex outside their primary relationship or who have an HIV-positive partner. There is reason to believe that couples' sero-status and sexual agreement will shape perceptions of PrEP's personal relevance among gay couples. The current study examined motivations for and ambivalence towards PrEP uptake reported in a sample of 67 gay couples during completion of a brief CDC-recommended prevention intervention: Couples HIV Testing and Counseling. Findings suggest that all types of couples identified some circumstances in which they would consider PrEP; however, PrEP messaging should be crafted to avoid undermining current prevention strategies or threatening the trust and legitimacy of the relationship.

No abstract