SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Gender-based violence;
  • HIV;
  • intimate partner violence;
  • sex workers;
  • sexual violence;
  • women

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. What are the pathways from gender inequality and gender-based violence to HIV?
  5. Conclusion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References

A growing body of international research documents strong associations between gender-based violence and HIV, both in the general population and among high-risk subpopulations such as female sex workers. The causal pathways responsible are multiple and complex, thus conceptual clarity is needed to best inform population-based, clinical, and individually oriented interventions. Our brief overview is intended to provide an introduction to the research on the various mechanisms that link GBV to HIV risk. We review the evidence, describe the causal pathways, provide a conceptual framework, and outline prevention and intervention priorities at both the individual and population levels.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. What are the pathways from gender inequality and gender-based violence to HIV?
  5. Conclusion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References

Gender-based violence (GBV1) affects 30–60% of women worldwide with significant consequences for mental, physical, and sexual health.[1, 2] Predominant among these health outcomes are sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Over a decade of research around the world supports a multifaceted causal link between GBV and HIV infection. Beginning in the late 1990s, cross-sectional research from Africa and India consistently found that women who had experienced physical or sexual violence from male intimate partners (IPV) were more likely to have prevalent sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.[3-9] For example, in Tanzania, women seeking voluntary counseling and testing who had experienced partner violence were more likely to be HIV positive [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.39: 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21, 4.73]; this association was exceptionally important for women under 30 who were about 10 times more likely to be HIV positive if they reported IPV.[5] In South Africa, women seeking routine antenatal care who reported a history of physical or sexual IPV were 53% more likely to test HIV positive (aOR = 1.53: 95% CI 1.10, 2.04) and those experiencing high levels of gender power inequality in male–female relationships were 56% more likely to test HIV positive (aOR = 1.56: 95% CI 1.15, 2.11).[4] In a study of over 28,000 married women in India, those who had experienced both physical and sexual IPV were over 3 times more likely to be HIV positive than those who reported no IPV (aOR = 3.92: 95% CI 1.41, 10.84).[7] More recently, longitudinal research from South Africa affirmed that young women who had experienced either IPV and/or high levels of gender inequality in their sexual relationships with men were at elevated risk of acquiring HIV over a 2 year follow-up period, with increasingly severe violence associated with increasing risk of new HIV infection[10]; this strongly suggests a causal link. Evidence from India echoes the evidence for the causal nature of these associations, with spousal sexual violence significantly associated with risk for incident sexually transmitted infections.[11] In light of the evidence of causal association offered by these data, we review the pathways that link GBV to HIV both in the general population and within a group at uniquely high risk for both violence and HIV: women involved in sex work or female sex workers (FSWs) (Fig. 1).

image

Figure 1. Illustration of pathways from gender inequality and high-risk masculinity to increased HIV risk among survivors of violence. Perpetrators of violence are generally considered more likely to be HIV infected because of syndemic links between violence perpetration, high-risk sex and substance use. Victims are infected through two pathways (i) direct transmission from an infected perpetrator; (ii) long-term increase in vulnerability resulting from experience of violence. The effect of these pathways can be magnified among highly vulnerable populations, such a female sex workers (FSWs).

Download figure to PowerPoint

What are the pathways from gender inequality and gender-based violence to HIV?

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. What are the pathways from gender inequality and gender-based violence to HIV?
  5. Conclusion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References

The first, and most obvious, pathway from GBV to HIV is direct infection through an act of sexual assault, with transmission facilitated by the genital and/or anal trauma that can accompany unwanted or forced sex.[12, 13] Yet, while HIV transmission via acts of rape unquestionably occurs, a growing body of evidence suggests that the increased HIV risk caused by violence at the population level is not limited to, or even primarily driven by, sexual assault. For example, women who report physical violence without accompanying sexual violence from male partners consistently show increased risk of STI and HIV.[10, 14, 4, 15] This pathway is most plausible biologically if men who are physically violent are also more likely to be HIV positive, and indeed this appears to be the case. Evidence from around the world suggests that men who perpetrate violence engage in higher levels of risky sexual behavior, including multiple and concurrent sexual partnerships, transactional sex and substance use.[3, 16-22] In turn, such men are also more likely to report STI symptoms,[19, 22] STI infection[23] and to be confirmed as HIV positive in studies where serostatus data are available.[3, 24] Thus, a second important piece of the causal pathway from GBV to HIV is that male perpetrators of violence are more likely to be HIV positive. This increases the risk for survivors, particularly survivors of IPV who may be having repeated sexual contact with the perpetrator, even where the sex in the relationship is not overtly violent.

Violence can also increase HIV risk via multiple, interlinked, indirect pathways. Violence reduces victims' abilities to influence the timing and circumstances of sex, resulting in more unwanted sex and less condom use, including situations where women are coerced or pressured not to use condoms.[18, 25-27] Highlighting the confluence of these risks, research from India, which analyzed data from over 20,000 husband–wife dyads, confirmed that abused wives face increased HIV risk, not just because of greater likelihood of HIV infection among abusive husbands, but also because of elevated HIV transmission within abusive relationships.[3] Experiences of violence can also influence subsequent patterns of sexual risk taking among survivors. In both developed and developing countries, past exposure to GBV and controlling behavior from a sexual partner is consistently associated with subsequent high-risk sexual behavior, including multiple and concurrent sexual partnerships, increased numbers of overall partners, lower levels of condom use, increased substance use and sex while intoxicated, and increased participation in transactional sex as well as commercial sex work.[4, 6, 15, 28-34] This risk increase in part reflects the psychological impact of violence, which can last many years after the violent acts.[35] Women who have survived abuse may be more willing to engage in risky sex, and less able to refuse unwanted advances, especially when drunk, drugged, dissociating, seeking affection, or otherwise unable to resist controlling male partners.[33, 34, 36] Emerging evidence suggests a very similar link between violence and increased risk of HIV among MSM in Western countries.[37-46] All survivors of GBV are known to be at higher risk of revictimization or subsequent experience of additional violence.[47, 48] Because GBV increases risk of later GBV as well as HIV, and because the link between GBV and HIV risk seems to show a dose–response effect,[4, 10] revictimzation is an important phenomenon through which the link between GBV and HIV may be amplified.

Finally, we must consider the powerful social backdrop from which these risk pathways arise and within which they play out; this upstream social context plays a critically important role in promoting and perpetuating linked risks of GBV and HIV. Male perpetration of violence is underpinned by dominant social norms about masculinity, femininity, and sexuality.[21] Qualitative research shows that the intersections of HIV, gender inequality and GBV lie in the patriarchal nature of most societies, especially in ideals of masculinity that are predicated on control of women and valorize male strength and toughness.[49] These ideas are sometimes referred to as ‘hegemonic’ gender roles–the most dominant and highly valued ideas about how men and women are supposed act in a given cultural context.[50] Violence against women, including IPV and rape, is one consequence of gender inequality; however, such violence also serves to reinforce and perpetuate gender inequality and at both societal and relationship levels.[49, 50] One key facet of hegemonic gender roles in most societies is what is sometimes called ‘compulsory heterosexuality’[51]– the misguided idea that ideal masculinity and femininity are inherently heterosexual and that other sexual orientations are defiant, deviant, and/or pathological. Much like gender inequality fuels violence against women, heterosexism, homophobia, and transphobia fuel perpetration of violence against people perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, or queer (LGBTQ) and are in turn reinforced by such violence. Finally, some forms of violence between men, including much male-on-male sexual violence, are driven by and reinforce power hierarchies between men, particularly the dominance of stronger and more powerful men over men perceived as weaker or less masculine.[52-55] The multiple pathways from GBV to HIV thus emerge from self-reinforcing cycles of hegemonic gender roles and heterosexuality and violent acts. In addition to meeting the immediate needs of violence survivors and those at risk for abuse, addressing this upstream origin is a crucial goal for effective primary prevention of both GBV and HIV.

Unique Considerations for a High-Risk Population: Female Sex Workers

All of these dynamics are magnified in intensity among certain high-risk groups. Women involved in the trade of sex for money or other resources, also known as FSWs, are a uniquely high-risk population with regard to HIV, and demonstrate an almost 14-fold greater burden of infection.[56] Moreover, a growing evidence base demonstrates that FSWs suffer alarming levels of physical and sexual violence perpetrated by partners, clients, police, and other actors.[28, 57-60] Consistent with evidence from the general population, violence against FSWs is associated with HIV infection[60] as well as STI symptoms[58] and STI infection.[28, 57]

The risk pathways described for the general population; that is, limited control over sex with high-risk partners, perpetuated by a culture of social norms that promotes abuse and sexual risk behavior, appear relevant for this population. FSWs face several additional and unique risks that should be noted with regard to violence and HIV. For example, severe sexual violence at initiation of sex work has been observed among sex workers, particularly among those forced or coerced into sex work[58, 61-63]; such experiences are associated with increased sexual risk, STI symptoms,[58] and HIV infection.[63] Sexual violence at initiation to sex work is often described as unprotected,[61, 62] particularly when clients perceive, or have been lead to believe, that younger women are sexually inexperienced.[64] Sexual violence upon initiation into sex work conveys a clear message of disempowerment to women who face such experiences,[62] thus conferring a long-term impact on sexual risk.

As with the general population, FSWs may abandon attempts to use condoms to prioritize their immediate needs for physical safety when threatened with violence or coercion. Overt or implicit threat of violence can operate as a coercive tactic for unprotected sex.[65] Client aggression and threats of violence are described as intended to limit the ability of those involved to assert themselves or negotiate condom use.[64] FSWs from a wide range of settings report client condom refusal[58] and client insistence on unprotected sex.[66] In addition, forced sex is often unprotected.[67] FSWs exposed to violence are more likely to face client pressure for unprotected sex[68] as well as overt client condom refusal.[58] Violence has been linked with condom non-use,[57] condom breakage[57, 65] and condom failure,[58, 69] suggesting that coercive and forceful dynamics can often underpin unprotected sex among FSWs.

FSWs also face unique pressures and forms of coercion–overt or implied pressure in the absence of physical force that may prompt them to prioritize their physical safety or immediate needs over HIV prevention. For example, sex workers often report economic coercion for unprotected sex, that is, pressure for unprotected sex in exchange for greater money or other resources.[23, 59, 66, 70, 71] While rarely quantitatively assessed, violence and coercion also appear to be associated with higher risk sex for FSWs. For example, qualitative investigation documents forced anal sex[67, 72] as well as coercive anal sex (for example, anal sex which cannot be refused for fear of not being paid).[73] The limited epidemiological inquiry in this area illustrates that violence is associated with anal sex among FSWs,[57] which in turn poses STI/HIV risk.[28] Finally, illustrating the power of coercion in the absence of physical force, sex workers may also be forced into situations with multiple sex partners, whereby an arrangement with one client results in subsequent force or coercion into sex with additional men that the client has arranged.[28, 72, 73] Together these data illustrate the need to address the intersections of violence and HIV among FSWs, and consider additional sources of violence-related HIV risk for this highly affected population.

Conclusion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. What are the pathways from gender inequality and gender-based violence to HIV?
  5. Conclusion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References

These data confirm that the causal pathways linking GBV and HIV are complex and multifaceted. Effective prevention is possible but requires similarly multifaceted approaches to be maximally effective.[74] At the individual level, survivors of GBV are clearly a high-risk group who must be supported in seeking the full range of HIV prevention and treatment services. Appropriate clinic-based screening and referrals can connect violence survivors of all genders with violence-related support services, which can in turn improve mental health outcomes.[75-77] Investing in supporting survivors of abuse as they seek appropriate HIV testing, care, and treatment, and integrating violence-related support within HIV prevention and clinical care, is essential, particularly for high-risk groups such as FSWs.

At a population level, the unequal gender norms that give rise to violence against women and LGBTQ individuals also increase men's risk of contracting HIV and of passing it on to their partners. GBV, gender inequality, and homophobia/heterosexism are thus critical dynamics that help drive HIV transmission, including in high-risk contexts such as sex work and substance use. Best practice HIV prevention programmes, such as Stepping Stones[78-81] and IMAGE (Intervention with Microfinance for AIDS and Gender Equity),[82-86] therefore address both the broader context of gender inequality as well as the risk of infection through acts of violence, and in particular include efforts to engage men in accountable partnership in prevention.[74]

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. What are the pathways from gender inequality and gender-based violence to HIV?
  5. Conclusion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References

We would like to acknowledge the contribution of fellow participants at the SSRC Scientific Research Planning Meeting: Sexual Violence and HIV Transmission in offering support for this writing. Dr. Dunkle's work was supported in part by P30 AI050409.

  1. 1

    We use the term GBV to include most anti-LGBTQ violence and some types of violence between men.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. What are the pathways from gender inequality and gender-based violence to HIV?
  5. Conclusion
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References
  • 1
    Ellsberg M, Jansen HAFM, Heise L, Watts CH, Garcia-Moreno C, WHO Multi-country Study on Women's Health Domestic Violence against Women Study Team: Intimate partner violence and women's physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence: an observational study. Lancet 2008; 371:11651172.
  • 2
    Garcia-Moreno C, Jansen HAFM, Ellsberg M, Heise L, Watts CH, WHO Multi-country Study on Women's Health Domestic Violence against Women Study Team: Prevalence of intimate partner violence: findings from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence. Lancet 2006; 368:12601269.
  • 3
    Decker MR, Seage GR IIIrd, Hemenway D, Raj A, Saggurti N, Balaiah D, Silverman J: Intimate partner violence functions as both a risk marker and risk factor for women's HIV infection: findings from Indian husband-wife dyads. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2009; 51:593600.
  • 4
    Dunkle KL, Jewkes RK, Brown HC, Gray GE, McIntyre JA, Harlow SD: Gender-based violence, relationship power, and risk of HIV infection in women attending antenatal clinics in South Africa. Lancet 2004; 363:14151421.
  • 5
    Maman S, Mbwambo JK, Hogan NM, Kilonzo G, Campbell JC, Weiss E, Sweat M: HIV-positive women report more lifetime partner violence: findings from a voluntary counselling and testing clinic in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Am J Public Health 2002; 92:13311337.
  • 6
    Martin SL, Matza LS, Kupper LL, Thomas JC, Daly M, Cloutier S: Domestic violence and sexually transmitted diseases: the experience of prenatal care patients. Public Health Rep 1999; 114:262268.
  • 7
    Silverman JG, Decker MR, Saggurti N, Balaiah D, Raj A: Intimate Partner Violence and HIV Infection Among Married Indian Women. JAMA 2008; 300:703710.
  • 8
    van der Straten A, King R, Grinstead O, Serufilira A, Allen S: Couple communication, sexual coercion and HIV risk reduction in Kigali, Rwanda. AIDS 1995; 9:935944.
  • 9
    van der Straten A, King R, Grinstead O, Vittinghoff E, Serufilira A, Allen S: Sexual Coercion, Physical Violence, and HIV Infection Among Women in Steady Relationships in Kigali, Rwanda. AIDS Behav 1998; 02:6173.
  • 10
    Jewkes RK, Dunkle KL, Nduna M, Shai NJ: Intimate partner violence, relationship power inequity, and incidence of HIV infection in young women in South Africa: a cohort study. Lancet 2010; 376:4148.
  • 11
    Weiss HA, Patel V, West B, Peeling RW, Kirkwood BR, Mabey D: Spousal sexual violence and poverty are risk factors for sexually transmitted infections in women: a longitudinal study of women in Goa, India. Sex Transm Infect 2008; 84:133139.
  • 12
    Adams JA, Girardin B, Faugno D: Adolescent sexual assault: documentation of acute injuries using photo-colposcopy. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2001; 14:175180.
  • 13
    McLean I, Roberts SA, White C, Paul S: Female genital injuries resulting from consensual and non-consensual vaginal intercourse. Forensic Sci Int 2011; 204:2733.
  • 14
    Decker MR, Silverman JG, Raj A: Dating violence and sexually transmitted disease/HIV testing and diagnosis among adolescent females. Pediatrics 2005; 116:e272e276.
  • 15
    Jewkes R, Dunkle K, Nduna M, Levin J, Jama N, Khuzwayo N, Koss M, Puren A, Duvvury N: Factors associated with HIV sero-status in young rural South African women: connections between intimate partner violence and HIV. Int J Epidemiol 2006; 35:14611468.
  • 16
    Dunkle KL, Jewkes R, Nduna M, Jama N, Levin J, Sikweyiya Y, Koss MP: Transactional sex with casual and main partners among young South African men in the rural Eastern Cape: prevalence, predictors, and associations with gender-based violence. Soc Sci Med 2007; 65:12351248.
  • 17
    Dunkle KL, Jewkes RK, Nduna M, Levin J, Jama N, Khuzwayo N, Koss MP, Duvvury N: Perpetration of partner violence and HIV risk behaviour among young men in the rural Eastern Cape, South Africa. AIDS 2006; 20:21072114.
  • 18
    Jewkes R, Dunkle K, Koss MP, Levin JB, Nduna M, Jama N, Sikweyiya Y: Rape perpetration by young, rural South African men: Prevalence, patterns and risk factors. Soc Sci Med 2006; 63:29492961.
  • 19
    Martin SL, Kilgallen B, Tsui AO, Maitra K, Singh KK, Kupper LL: Sexual behaviors and reproductive health outcomes: associations with wife abuse in India. JAMA 1999; 282:19671972.
  • 20
    Raj A, Santana C, La Marche A, Amaro H, Cranston K, Silverman JG: Perpetration of intimate partner violence associated with sexual risk behaviors among young adult men. Am J Public Health 2006; 96:18731878.
  • 21
    Santana MC, Raj A, Decker MR, La Marche A, Silverman JG: Masculine gender roles associated with increased sexual risk and intimate partner violence perpetration among young adult men. J Urban Health 2006; 83:575585.
  • 22
    Silverman J, Decker MR, Kapur NA, Gupta J, Raj A: Violence against Wives, Sexual Risk and Sexually-Transmitted Infection among Bangladeshi Men. Sex Transm Infect 2007; 83:211215.
  • 23
    Decker MR, Seage GR IIIrd, Hemenway D, Gupta J, Raj A, Silverman JG: Intimate partner violence perpetration, standard and gendered STI/HIV risk behaviour, and STI/HIV diagnosis among a clinic-based sample of men. Sex Transm Infect 2009; 85:555560.
  • 24
    Jewkes R, Sikweyiya Y, Morrell R, Dunkle K: The relationship between intimate partner violence, rape and HIV amongst South African men: a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2011; 6:e24256.
  • 25
    Pettifor AE, Measham D, Rees HV, Padian NS: Sexual power and HIV risk, South Africa. Emerging Infection Diseases [serial on the Internet]. 2004: Available from http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol10no1/04-0252.htm.
  • 26
    Silverman JG, McCauley HL, Decker MR, Miller E, Reed E, Raj A: Coercive forms of sexual risk and associated violence perpetrated by male partners of female adolescents. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2011; 43:6065.
  • 27
    Wood K, Maforah F, Jewkes R: “He forced me to love him”: putting violence on adolescent sexual health agendas. Soc Sci Med 1998; 47:233242.
  • 28
    Decker MR, Wirtz AL, Baral SD, Peryshkina A, Mogilnyi V, Weber RA, Stachowiak J, Go V, Beyrer C: Injection drug use, sexual risk, violence and STI/HIV among Moscow female sex workers. Sex Transm Infect 2012; 88:78283.
  • 29
    El-Bassel N, Gilbert L, Krishnan S, Schilling R, Gaeta T, Purpura S, Witte SS: Partner violence and sexual HIV-risk behaviors among women in an inner-city emergency department. Violence Vict 1998; 13:377393.
  • 30
    El-Bassel N, Gilbert L, Schilling RF, Wada T: Drug Abuse and Partner Violence among Women in Methadone Treatment. J Fam Violence 2000; 15:209228.
  • 31
    Gielen AC, McDonnell KA, O'Campo P: Intimate Partner Violence, HIV Status and Sexual Risk Reduction. AIDS Behav 2002; 6:107116.
  • 32
    Jewkes RK, Levin JB, Penn-Kekana LA: Gender inequalities, intimate partner violence and HIV preventive practices: findings of a South African cross-sectional study. Soc Sci Med 2003; 56:125134.
  • 33
    Johnson SD, Cunningham-Williams RM, Cottler LB: A tripartite of HIV-risk for African-American women: the intersection of drug use, violence and depression. Drug Alcohol Depend 2003; 70:169175.
  • 34
    Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ: Rape among African American women: sexual, psychological, and social correlates predisposing survivors to risk of STD/HIV. J Womens Health 1998; 7:7784.
  • 35
    Wang SH, Rowley W. Rape: How Men, the Community and the Health Sector Respond. Geneva, Sexual Violence Research Initiative and the World Health Organization, 2007.
  • 36
    Wang B, Li X, Stanton B, Fang X, Yang H, Zhao R, Hong Y: Sexual coercion, HIV-related risk, and mental health among female sex workers in China. Health Care Women Int 2007; 28:745762.
  • 37
    Arreola SG, Neilands TB, Diaz R, Arreola SG, Neilands TB, Diaz R: Childhood sexual abuse and the sociocultural context of sexual risk among adult Latino gay and bisexual men. Am J Public Health 2009; 99(Suppl 2):S432S438.
  • 38
    Braitstein P, Asselin JJ, Schilder A, Miller ML, Laliberte N, Schechter MT, Hogg RS: Sexual violence among two populations of men at high risk of HIV infection. AIDS Care 2006; 18:681689.
  • 39
    Greenwood GL, Relf MV, Huang B, Pollack LM, Canchola JA, Catania JA: Battering victimization among a probability-based sample of men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health 92:19641969.
  • 40
    Heintz AJ, Melendez RM, Heintz AJ, Melendez RM: Intimate partner violence and HIV/STD risk among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. J Interpers Violence 2006; 21:193208.
  • 41
    Jinich S, Paul JP, Acree M, Kegels S, Hoff C, Coates TJ: Childhood sexual abuse and HIV risk-taking behavior among gay and bisexual men. AIDS Behav 1998; 2:4151.
  • 42
    Koblin BA, Torian L, Xu G, Guilin V, Makki H, Mackellar D, Valleroy L: Violence and HIV-related risk among young men who have sex with men. AIDS Care 2006; 18:961967.
  • 43
    Paul JP, Catania J, Pollack L, Stall R: Understanding childhood sexual abuse as a predictor of sexual risk-taking among men who have sex with men: The Urban Men's Health Study. Child Abuse Negl 2001; 25:557584.
  • 44
    Relf MV: Battering and HIV in men who have sex with men: a critique and synthesis of the literature. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care 2001; 12:4148.
  • 45
    Shelton AJ, Atkinson J, Risser JM, McCurdy SA, Useche B, Padgett PM, Risser JMH: The prevalence of partner violence in a group of HIV-infected men. AIDS Care 2005; 17:814818.
  • 46
    Stall R, Millis TC, Williamson J, Hart T, Greenwood GL, Paul JP, Pollack L, Binson D, Osmond D, Catania JA: Association of co-occurring psychosocial health problems and increased vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among urban men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health 2003; 93:939942.
  • 47
    Dunkle KL, Jewkes RK, Brown HC, Yoshihama M, Gray GE, McIntyre JA, Harlow SD: Prevalence and patterns of gender-based violence and revictimization among women attending antenatal clinics in Soweto, South Africa. Am J Epidemiol 2004; 160:230239.
  • 48
    Roodman AA, Clum GA: Revictimization rates and method variance: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2001; 21:183204.
  • 49
    Jewkes R, Morrell R: Gender and sexuality: emerging perspectives from the heterosexual epidemic in South Africa and implications for HIV risk and prevention. J Int AIDS Soc 2010; 13:6.
  • 50
    Connell RW. Masculinities, 2nd edn. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2005.
  • 51
    Rich A: Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs 1980; 5:631660.
  • 52
    Aosved AC, Long PJ: Co-occurrence of rape myth acceptance, sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance. Sex Roles 2006; 55:481492.
  • 53
    Reid G, Dirsuweit T: Understanding Systemic Violence: Homophobic Attacks in Johannesburg and its Surrounds. Urban Forum 2002, 13: 99126.
  • 54
    Anderson I: Explaining negative rape victim perception: Homophobia and the male rape victim. Curr Res Soc Psychol. 2004; 10:4357.
  • 55
    Tomsen S, Mason G: Engendering homophobia: violence, sexuality and gender conformity. J Sociol 2001; 37:257273.
  • 56
    Baral S, Beyrer C, Muessig K, Poteat T, Wirtz AL, Decker MR, Sherman SG, Kerrigan D: Burden of HIV among female sex workers in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012; 12:538549.
  • 57
    Beattie TSBP, Ramesh BM, Gurnani V, Anthony J, Isac S, Mohan HL, Ramakrishnan A, Wheeler T, Bradley J, Blanchard JF, Moses S: Violence against female sex workers in Karnataka state, south India: Impact on health, and reductions in violence following an intervention program. BMC Public Health 2010; 10:476.
  • 58
    Decker MR, McCauley HL, Phuengsamran D, Janyam S, Seage GR IIIrd, Silverman JG: Violence victimisation, sexual risk and sexually transmitted infection symptoms among female sex workers in Thailand. Sex Transm Infect 2010; 86:236240.
  • 59
    Reed E, Gupta J, Biradavolu M, Devireddy V, Blankenship KM: The context of economic insecurity and its relation to violence and risk factors for HIV among female sex workers in Andhra Pradesh, India. Public Health Rep 2010; 125(Suppl 4):8189.
  • 60
    Ulibarri MD, Strathdee SA, Ulloa EC, Lozada R, Fraga MA, Magis-Rodríguez C, Patterson TL: Injection drug use as a mediator between client-perpetrated abuse and HIV status among female sex workers in two Mexico-US border cities. AIDS Behav 2011; 12:179185.
  • 61
    Devine A, Bowen K, Dzuvichu B, Rungsung R, Kermode M: Pathways to sex-work in Nagaland, India: implications for HIV prevention and community mobilisation. AIDS Care 2010; 22:228237.
  • 62
    Gupta J, Raj A, Decker MR, Reed E, Silverman JG: HIV vulnerabilities of sex-trafficked Indian women and girls. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2009; 107:3034.
  • 63
    Sarkar K, Bal B, Mukherjee R, Chakraborty S, Saha S, Ghosh A, Parsons S: Sex-trafficking, violence, negotiating skill, and HIV infection in brothel-based sex workers of eastern India, adjoining Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh. J Health Popul Nutr 2008; 26:223231.
  • 64
    Rushing R, Watts C, Rushing S: Living the reality of forced sex work: perspectives from young migrant women sex workers in northern Vietnam. J Midwifery Womens Health 2005; 50:e41e44.
  • 65
    Rhodes T, Simic M, Baros S, Platt L, Zikic B: Police violence and sexual risk among female and transvestite sex workers in Serbia: qualitative study. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2008; 337(Journal Article): a811.
  • 66
    Nemoto T, Iwamoto M, Colby D, Witt S, Pishori A, Le MN, Vinh DT, Giang le T: HIV-related risk behaviors among female sex workers in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. AIDS Educ Prev 2008; 20:435453.
  • 67
    Simic M, Rhodes T: Violence, dignity and HIV vulnerability: street sex work in Serbia. Sociol Health Illn 2009; 31:116.
  • 68
    Shannon K, Kerr T, Strathdee SA, Shoveller J, Montaner JS, Tyndall MW: Prevalence and structural correlates of gender based violence among a prospective cohort of female sex workers. BMJ 2009; 339:b2939.
  • 69
    Choi SY, Chen KL, Jiang ZQ: Client-perpetuated violence and condom failure among female sex workers in southwestern China. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35:141146.
  • 70
    Nemoto T, Iwamoto M, Wong S, Le MN, Operario D: Social factors related to risk for violence and sexually transmitted infections/HIV among Asian massage parlor workers in San Francisco. AIDS Behav 2004; 8:475483.
  • 71
    Ntumbanzondo M, Dubrow R, Niccolai LM, Mwandagalirwa K, Merson MH: Unprotected intercourse for extra money among commercial sex workers in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo. AIDS Care 2006; 18:777785.
  • 72
    Stachowiak JA, Sherman S, Konakova A, Krushkova I, Beyrer C, Peryskina A, Strathdee S: Health risks and power among female sex workers in Moscow. SEICUS Report. 2005; 22:1826.
  • 73
    Panchanadeswaran S, Johnson SC, Sivaram S, Srikrishnan AK, Latkin C, Bentley ME, Solomon S, Go VF, Celentano D: Intimate partner violence is as important as client violence in increasing street-based female sex workers' vulnerability to HIV in India. Int J Drug Policy 2008; 19:106112.
  • 74
    Dunkle KL, Jewkes R: Effective HIV prevention requires gender-transformative work with men. Sex Transm Infect 2007; 83:173174.
  • 75
    Ahrens CE, Stansell J, Jennings A: To tell or not to tell: the impact of disclosure on sexual assault survivors' recovery. Violence Vict 2010; 25:631648.
  • 76
    Starzynski LL, Ullman SE, Filipas HH, Townsend SM: Correlates of women's sexual assault disclosure to informal and formal support sources. Violence Vict 2005; 20:417432.
  • 77
    Wasco SM, Campbell R, Howard A, Mason GE, Staggs SL, Schewe PA, Riger S: A statewide evaluation of services provided to rape survivors. J Interpers Violence. 2004; 19:252263.
  • 78
    Jewkes R, Wood K, Duvvury N: ‘I woke up after I joined Stepping Stones’: meanings of an HIV behavioural intervention in rural South African young people's lives. Health Educ Res 2010; 25:10741084.
  • 79
    Jewkes R, Nduna M, Levin J, Jama N, Dunkle KL, Puren A, Duvvury N: Impact of Stepping Stones on incidence of HIV and HSV-2 and sexual behaviour in rural South Africa: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2008; 337:a506.
  • 80
    Jewkes R, Nduna M, Levin J, Jama N, Dunkle K, Khuzwayo N, Koss M, Puren A, Wood K, Duvvury N: A cluster randomized-controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of Stepping Stones in preventing HIV infections and promoting safer sexual behaviour amongst youth in the rural Eastern Cape, South Africa: trial design, methods and baseline findings. Trop Med Int Health 2006; 11:316.
  • 81
    Paine K, Hart G, Jawo M, Ceesay S, Jallow M: ‘Before we were sleeping, now we are awake’: preliminary evaluation Stepping Stones sexual health programme in The Gambia. Afr J AIDS Res 2002; 1:3940.
  • 82
    Hatcher A, de Wet J, Bonell CP, Strange V, Phetla G, Proynk PM, Kim JC, Morison L, Porter JDH, Busza J, Watts C, Hargreaves JR: Promoting critical consciousness and social mobilization in HIV/AIDS programmes: Lessons and curricular tools from a South African intervention. Health Educ Res 2011; 26:542555.
  • 83
    Kim J, Ferrari G, Abramsky T, Watts C, Hargreaves J, Morison L, Phetla G, Porter J, Pronyk P: Assessing the incremental effects of combining economic and health interventions: the IMAGE study in South Africa. Bull World Health Organ 2009; 87:824832.
  • 84
    Phetla G, Busza J, Hargreaves JR, Pronyk PM, Kim JC, Morison LA, Watts C, Porter JD: “They have opened our mouths”: increasing women's skills and motivation for sexual communication with young people in rural South Africa. AIDS Educ Prev 2008; 20:504518.
  • 85
    Jan S, Pronyk P, Kim J: Accounting for institutional change in health economic evaluation: a program to tackle HIV/AIDS and gender violence in Southern Africa. Soc Sci Med 2008; 66:922932.
  • 86
    Pronyk PM, Hargreaves JR, Kim JC, Morison LA, Phetla G: Effect of a structural intervention for the prevention of intimate-partner violence and HIV in rural South Africa: a cluster randomised trial. Lancet 2006; 368:19731983.