The Relative Influence of Perceived Immigration Laws and Consequences on HIV Testing Among US Latino Immigrants.

The CDC recommends that persons aged 13-64 receive an HIV test at least once in their lifetime and that some groups test annually or more frequently. Nearly one-half of US Latino immigrants have never been tested for HIV. To the extent that immigration-related laws deter documented and undocumented immigrants from engaging in communicable disease control measures, these laws undermine public health efforts. 1750 noncitizen adult, sexually active, Spanish-speaking Latino immigrants across four cities in the US completed a cross-sectional survey assessing perceptions of immigration-related laws and immigration consequences related to HIV testing and diagnosis. Participants were recruited in-person by staff in community settings, through flyers posted in places frequented by Latino immigrants, and by word-of-mouth through snowball sampling. Outcomes were whether participants had ever received an HIV test and whether they tested in the previous 12 months. Multivariable analyses examined the relative contribution of perceived immigration laws and consequences on HIV testing behaviors when considering established predictors of HIV testing. Perceptions of HIV-related immigration laws and immigration consequences was a significant predictor of never having had an HIV test even when considered relative to common predictors of HIV testing. The influence of perceived immigration laws and consequences on testing in the previous 12 months was not significant in multivariable analysis. Perceived HIV-related immigration laws and consequences appear to be a substantial contributor to reluctance to be tested for HIV among Latino immigrants who have never been tested. Effective interventions should be developed to address these.

RESUMEN: El CDC recomienda que las personas de 13 a 64 años se hagan una prueba del VIH al menos una vez en la vida y que algunos grupos se hagan la prueba anualmente o con mayor frecuencia. Casi la mitad de los inmigrantes latinos de los Estados Unidos nunca se han hecho la prueba del VIH. En la medida en que las leyes relacionadas con la inmigración disuadan a los inmigrantes documentados e indocumentados de participar en medidas de control de enfermedades transmisibles, estas leyes socavan los esfuerzos de salud pública. 1750 inmigrantes latinos adultos no ciudadanos, sexualmente activos y de habla hispana en cuatro ciudades de EE. UU. completaron una encuesta transversal que evaluó las percepciones de las leyes relacionadas con la inmigración y de las consecuencias de la inmigración relacionadas con las pruebas y el diagnóstico del VIH. Los participantes fueron reclutados en persona en contextos comunitarios, a través de volantes publicados en lugares frecuentados por inmigrantes latinos y de boca en boca a través de muestras de bola de nieve. Las variables dependientes fueron si los participantes se habían hecho una prueba del VIH alguna vez y si se habían hecho la prueba en los últimos 12 meses. Los análisis multivariados examinaron la contribución relativa de la percepción de las leyes de inmigración y de las consecuencias de inmigración sobre los comportamientos relativo a las pruebas del VIH, controlando por predictores conocidos de las pruebas del VIH. Las percepciones de las leyes de inmigración relacionadas con el VIH y las consecuencias de la inmigración fueron un predictor significativo de nunca haberse realizado una prueba del VIH, aun considerando los predictores comunes de la prueba del VIH. La influencia de la percepción de las leyes de inmigración y de las consecuencias de la inmigración sobre la prueba en los últimos 12 meses no fue significativa en el análisis multivariado. Las leyes de inmigración y las consecuencias percibidas relacionadas con el VIH parecen contribuir sustancialmente a la renuencia a hacerse la prueba del VIH entre los inmigrantes latinos que nunca se han hecho la prueba. Deben desarrollarse intervenciones efectivas para abordar esta renuencia.

Latino migrants' healthcare use in the US and perceived immigration laws and consequences: A multivariable analysis.

BACKGROUND: Using healthcare, whether for routine preventative examinations, chronic condition management, or emergent conditions, is an essential element of achieving and maintaining health. Over 44 million migrants live in the US today and nearly half (44.6 %) are Latino. To the extent that immigration law-related concerns deter US Latino migrants from using healthcare, they jeopardize the health of a substantial though marginalized US subpopulation. METHODS: A multistate sample (N = 1750) of noncitizen adult, Spanish speaking Latino migrants (both undocumented and documented) living in the US completed a cross-sectional survey comprising a scale assessing perceptions of immigration laws and consequences related to healthcare use and whether they had received and/or needed but did not receive healthcare in the previous 12-months. Participants were recruited in community settings and by word-of-mouth. Univariate analyses examined associations among study outcomes and common predictors of healthcare use. Multivariable analyses examined the relative contribution of perceived immigration laws and consequences on healthcare use and unmet need. RESULTS: Perceptions of immigration laws and immigration consequences were a significant predictor of not having received healthcare in the previous 12-months and having needed and not received healthcare in the same period, even when considered relative to common predictors of healthcare use. Immigration documentation status and preferred language predicted healthcare use in univariate analyses but not in the multivariable model. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived immigration laws and consequences related to healthcare use may influence migrants' healthcare use. Effective interventions should be developed to address immigration-related concerns.

US public charge policy and Latinx immigrants' thoughts about health and healthcare utilization.

OBJECTIVES: We examined Latinx immigrants' perceptions of US policy related to restrictions on immigrants' use of public resources and their thoughts about the influence of these on immigrants' healthcare utilization. DESIGN: A series of 16 focus group discussions with Latinx immigrant men and women (documented and undocumented) (N = 130) were conducted between May and July 2017 across four US cities. RESULTS: Four central themes emerged: participants attributed the limited resources available for affordable healthcare for many uninsured US immigrants (both documented and undocumented) to the US government's view of immigrants as burdens on public resources and its subsequent unwillingness to dedicate funds for their care; participants expressed concerns, some unfounded, about negative immigration ramifications arising from diagnosis with health conditions perceived to be serious and/or expensive to treat; participants noted that some immigrants avoided using health programs and services to which they were entitled because of immigration concerns; finally, participants described how access to information on immigration laws and healthcare resources, and conversely, misinformation about these, influenced healthcare utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were acutely aware of the image of immigrants as public charges or potential burdens on government resources that underlies US immigration policy. In some cases, participants came to inaccurate and potentially harmful conclusions about the substance of laws and regulations based on their beliefs about the government's rejection of immigrants who may burden public resources. This underscores the importance of ensuring that immigrants have access to information on immigration-related laws and regulations and on healthcare resources available to them. Participants noted that access to information also fostered resilience to widespread misinformation. Importantly, however, participants' beliefs had some basis in US immigration policy discourse. Law and policy makers should reconsider legislation and political commentary that frame self-reliance, the guiding principle of US immigration policy, in terms of immigrants' use of publicly funded healthcare resources.

Barriers to drug treatment in police diversion programs and drug courts: A qualitative analysis.

Drug treatment courts and police diversion programs are designed to divert people away from incarceration and into drug treatment. This article explores barriers in linking people who use drugs (PWUD) into drug treatment facilities in urban, suburban, and rural areas of Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. Between December 2018 and March 2020, study teams in the three states conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with key informants involved in programs to divert PWUD from criminal justice involvement including police, lawyers, judges, and others who work in drug treatment courts, and substance use disorder treatment providers who received referrals from and worked with police diversion programs or drug courts. Police diversion programs and drug treatment courts showed intraprogram variation in the structure of their programs in the three states and in different counties within the states. Structural barriers to successfully linking PWUD to treatment included a lack of resources, for example, a limited number of treatment facilities available, difficulties in funding mandated treatment, particularly in Wisconsin where Medicaid expansion has not occurred, and PWUDs' need for additional services such as housing. Many police officers, judges, and others within drug treatment court, including drug treatment specialists, hold stigmatizing attitudes toward medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) and are unlikely to recommend or actively refer to MOUD treatment. Drug courts and police diversion programs offer a welcome shift from prior emphases on criminalization of drug use. However, for such programs to be effective, more resources must be dedicated to their success. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

1000 Hometown Heroes: Mobilising community social influencers for COVID-19 prevention, care and coping.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) created life-disrupting stressors that disproportionately burden disadvantaged communities with devastating impacts that extend far beyond the burden of the disease itself, including joblessness, housing and food insecurity, educational system upheavals, isolation due to disrupted relationships, worsened mental health and substance use and violence. Socially interconnected community members are resources whose efforts can be mobilised to improve COVID-19 coping within their social networks. This research examined the feasibility, acceptability, and reach of a social media-based peer influencer intervention for COVID-19 coping. Over a 9-month period in 2020, the project enrolled 1253 social influencers in Milwaukee-primarily ethnic and racial minorities-who regularly received and passed along messages to members of their social networks that provided advice about COVID-19 pandemic coping, economic survival, health protection, mental health, family needs, social justice and other impacts. Messages were shared by influencers with others over social media and also text messages, phone calls and conversations. Facebook social media tracking metrics objectively measured the community reach of social influencers' messages. Quantitative surveys and qualitative follow-up interviews with a subset of influencers also measured the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Social media monitoring metrics showed that, by the end of the project, influencers' messages reached an average of 7978 unique individuals per week and had an average of 13,894 total views per week, with more than 140,000 total cumulative organic impressions. More than half of social influencers indicated that-beyond Facebook message sharing-they shared COVID-19 prevention, care, and coping messages with social network members in conversations, phone calls and text messages. Social influencers reported that they valued having the opportunity to help community members to cope with pandemic stressors by conveying practical COVID-19 coping advice.

"You're Not Supposed to be on it Forever": Medications to Treat Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) Related Stigma Among Drug Treatment Providers and People who Use Opioids.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) through prescription opioid misuse, heroin, and illicitly manufactured fentanyl use has increased dramatically in the past 20 years. Medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) is considered the gold standard for treating opioid use disorders but uptake remains low. Recently, Madden has argued that in addition to the stigma assigned to substance use and people with SUD, MOUDs also are stigmatized, a process she labels intervention stigma to distinguish it from condition stigma (ie, stigma of SUD) . In this paper, we examine MOUD related stigma from the perspective of people who use opioids (PWUO) and key informants who play some role in providing or referring people to drug treatment. Providers and PWOU often viewed MOUD as one drug replacing another which discouraged providers from recommending and PWUO from accepting MOUD. MOUD stigma was also expressed by providers' exaggerated fear of MOUD diversion. The extent to which MOUD was accepted as a legitimate treatment varied and influenced treatment providers' perceptions of the goals of drug treatment and the length of time that MOUD should be used with many feeling that MOUD should only be used as a temporary tool while PWOU work on other treatment goals. This led to tapering off of MOUD after some time in treatment. Some providers also expressed mistrust of MOUD stemming from their previous experiences with the over-prescription of opioids for pain which led to the current crisis. Results from this study suggest that the proportion of PWUO on MOUD is unlikely to increase without addressing MOUD stigma among drug treatment providers and PWUO seeking treatment.

A qualitative examination of naloxone access in three states: Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of opioid-involved overdose deaths remains a public health priority in the United States. While expanding access to naloxone is a national public health strategy, it is largely implemented at the state and local level, where significant variability in policies, resources, and norms exist. The aims of the current study were to examine the social context of naloxone access in three different states (Connecticut, Kentucky, Wisconsin) from the perspectives of key informants (first responders, harm reduction personnel, and pharmacists), who play some role in dispensing or administering naloxone within their communities. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with key informants who were in different local areas (urban, suburban, rural) across Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. Interview guides explored the key informants' experiences with administering or dispensing naloxone, and their perspectives on opioid overdose prevention efforts in their areas. Data analysis was conducted using multistage inductive coding and comparative methods to identify dominant themes within the data. RESULTS: Key informants in each of the three states noted progress toward expanding naloxone access, especially among people who use opioids, but also described inequities. The key role of harm reduction programs in distributing naloxone within their communities was also highlighted by participants, as well as barriers to increasing naloxone access through pharmacies. Although there was general consensus regarding the effectiveness of expanding naloxone access to prevent overdose deaths, the results indicate that communities are still grappling with stigma associated with drug use and a harm reduction approach. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that public health interventions that target naloxone distribution through harm reduction programs can enhance access within local communities. Strategies that address stigmatizing attitudes toward people who use drugs and harm reduction may also facilitate naloxone expansion efforts, overall, as well as policies that improve the affordability and awareness of naloxone through the pharmacy.

Latinx Immigrants' Legal Concerns About SARS-CoV-2 Testing and COVID-19 Diagnosis and Treatment.

Immigration concerns can deter immigrants from utilizing healthcare services. We examined Latinx immigrants' immigration concerns related to COVID-19 testing and treatment. A multi-state sample of 336 US Latinx immigrants (documented and undocumented) completed a cross-sectional online survey in Spanish. Factor analysis informed the construction of a COVID-19 Immigration Concerns Scale. Multiple logistic regression was used to examine associations between the scale and indices of perceived immigration risk and healthcare access and utilization. Concerns clustered around two factors: (1) providers' release of information to immigration authorities and drawing government attention; and (2) eligibility for COVID-19 services and the immigration ramifications of using these. The regression equation highlighted strong associations between these and perceived instability of immigration laws and enforcement concerns after controlling for healthcare access and utilization. COVID-19-related immigration concerns were substantial and multifaceted. Perceived instability of laws was strongly related to concerns but remains understudied.

The Influence of Perceived Immigration Context and Healthcare Utilization Immigration Law Concerns Latinx Immigrants' HIV Testing.

Although new HIV infections have remained stable or decreased for most U.S. groups at risk for HIV, incidence among Latinx increased by 6% and among Latinx individuals, immigrants are disproportionately infected. One driver of these infections is low rates of HIV testing. While research shows the chilling effect that restrictive immigration laws can have on immigrants' health care utilization, few studies have examined the influence of perceived immigration context and healthcare utilization immigration law concerns on following a public health recommendation such as HIV testing. The purpose of the study is to test an exploratory model of immigration-related variables and their impact on U.S. Latinx immigrants' yearly HIV testing. U.S.-Latinx immigrants (N=169) completed a cross-sectional survey assessing perceived enforcement of immigration laws, perceptions of law enforcement attitudes towards Latinx and immigrants, fear of deportation, concerns with the consequences of immigration laws for health care utilization, and yearly HIV testing. Path analysis findings indicated that perceived enforcement of immigration laws was related to perceived negative attitudes from law enforcement towards Latinx and immigrants which was associated with fear of deportation. Fear of deportation was associated with concerns with the implications of immigration laws for accessing publicly funded healthcare services and these concerns were negatively related to yearly HIV testing and mediated the association between fear of deportation and yearly HIV testing. Findings point to the need of developing and implementing individual- and policy-level interventions to increase HIV testing among Latinx immigrants in a restrictive immigration law environment. Resumen: Aunque nuevas infecciones de VIH se han mantenido estable o han disminuido para la mayoría de los grupos en los Estados Unidos (E.U.) en alto riesgo de contraer VIH, la incidencia de VIH entre Latinx ha aumentado 6% y entre individuos Latinx, los inmigrantes están desproporcionalmente afectados por la epidemia. Uno de los factores que contribuye a la alta tasa de VIH es la baja tasa de pruebas de VIH entre inmigrantes. Aunque la investigación confirma los efectos escalofriantes que las leyes restrictivas de inmigración pueden tener en la utilización de servicios de salud entre los inmigrantes, pocos estudios han examinado la influencia de la percepción del contexto de inmigración y las preocupaciones sobre las implicaciones de las leyes de inmigración si se utilizan servicios de salud públicos en seguir la recomendación de salud pública de hacerse la prueba de VIH regularmente. El propósito del estudio es someter a la prueba un modelo exploratorio de la influencia de variables relacionadas a la inmigración y su impacto en las pruebas anuales de HIV en los inmigrantes Latinx que viven en los E.U. (N=169). Los participantes contestaron un cuestionario transversal que midió la percepción del enforzamiento de las leyes de inmigración, la percepción de las actitudes de los agentes que enforzan las leyes de inmigración hacia Latinx y inmigrantes, el miedo a la deportación, las preocupaciones especificas sobre las consecuencias de las leyes de inmigración para la utilización de servicios de salud, la percepción de la sociedad sobre el estigma de VIH, y si los inmigrantes se hacen la prueba de VIH anualmente. Los resultados de los análisis de trayectoria indicaron que el enforzamiento de las leyes de inmigración esta relacionada con la percepción de que los agentes policiacos que enforzan las leyes tienen actitudes negativas hacia Latinx y inmigrantes lo cual esta asociado con el miedo a la deportación. El miedo a la deportación esta asociado a las preocupaciones sobre las implicaciones de las leyes de inmigración para la utilización de los servicios de salud patrocinados por el gobierno federal y estas preocupaciones fueron negativamente relacionadas con las pruebas anuales de VIH y mediaron la asociación entre el miedo a la deportación y las pruebas anuales de VIH. Los resultados señalan la importancia de desarrollar e implementar intervenciones al nivel individual y al nivel de política para aumentar las pruebas de VIH entre los inmigrantes Latinx en un ambiente de leyes restrictivas de inmigración.

Insurance barriers to substance use disorder treatment after passage of mental health and addiction parity laws and the affordable care act: A qualitative analysis.

Introduction: People who use drugs (PWUDs) in the United States historically have had a higher probability of being uninsured. Passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Health Parity and Addiction Equity was expected to increase access to treatment for substance use disorder. Few studies to date have conducted qualitative research with substance use disorder (SUD) treatment providers regarding Medicaid and other insurance coverage of SUD treatment following passage of the ACA and parity laws. The present paper fills this gap by reporting data from in-depth interviews with treatment providers from three states, Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin, that differ in implementation of the ACA. Methods: Study teams in each state conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key informants who provided SUD treatment, including providers of behavioral health residential or outpatient programs, office-based buprenorphine providers and opioid treatment programs [OTP, i.e. methadone clinics] (n = 24 in Connecticut, n = 63 in Kentucky and n = 63 in Wisconsin). Key informants were asked for their perceptions on how Medicaid and private insurance facilitates or limits access to drug treatment. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed for key themes using MAXQDA software using a collaborative approach. Results: Results from this study suggest that the promise of the ACA and parity laws to increase access to SUD treatment has only partially been realized. There is wide variation among the three states' Medicaid programs and among private insurance in the types of SUD treatment that is covered. Neither Kentucky's nor Connecticut's Medicaid covered methadone. Wisconsin Medicaid did not cover residential or intensive outpatient treatment. Thus, none of the states studied here provided all levels of care that the ASAM recommends for treating SUD. Further, there were several quantitative limits placed on SUD treatment such as number of urine drug screens or visits allowed. Providers complained that many treatments required prior authorizations, including MOUD like buprenorphine. Conclusions: More reform is needed to make SUD treatment accessible to all who need it. Such reforms should consider defining standards for opioid use disorder treatment with reference to evidence-based practices, not be attempting parity with an arbitrarily defined medical standard.

Assessment of COVID-19-Related Immigration Concerns Among Latinx Immigrants in the US.

Importance: Despite the contentious immigration environment and disproportionate rates of COVID-19 infection among Latinx individuals in the US, immigrants' concerns about engaging in COVID-19-related testing, treatment, and contact tracing have been largely unexplored. Objective: To examine the proportions of Latinx immigrants who endorse statements about the potential negative immigration ramifications of seeking and using COVID-19-related testing and treatment services and engaging in contact tracing. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional survey study, 25 COVID-19-related items were incorporated into the online Spanish-language survey of an ongoing study. Data were collected between July 15 and October 9, 2020, in Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; and Phoenix, Arizona. A nonrandom sample of 379 adult, Spanish-speaking, noncitizen Latinx immigrants (with either documented or undocumented immigration status) were sent surveys. Of those, 336 individuals (88.7% participation rate) returned surveys, and 43 individuals did not. An additional 213 individuals were screened but ineligible. Descriptive statistics were computed, and mean comparisons and bivariate correlations between sociodemographic variables, indices of immigration risk, and COVID-19-related survey items were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Items elicited agreement or disagreement with statements about immigrants' access to COVID-19-related testing and treatment services and the potential immigration ramifications of using these services. Willingness to identify an undocumented person during contact tracing was also assessed. Results: A total of 336 Latinx immigrants completed surveys. The mean (SD) age of participants was 39.7 (8.9) years; 210 participants (62.5%) identified as female, and 216 participants (64.3%) had undocumented immigration status. In total, 89 participants (26.5%) agreed that hospital emergency departments were the only source of COVID-19 testing or treatment for uninsured immigrants, and 106 participants (31.6%) agreed that using public testing and health care services for COVID-19 could jeopardize one's immigration prospects. A total of 96 participants (28.6%) and 114 participants (33.9%), respectively, would not identify an undocumented household member or coworker during contact tracing. Reluctance to identify an undocumented household member or coworker was associated with having had deportation experiences (r = -0.17; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.27; P = .003) but not with the number of years lived in the US (r = 0.07; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.17; P = .15) or immigration status (r = 0.03; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.13; P = .56). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional survey study, a substantial number of immigrants endorsed statements about immigrants' restricted access to COVID-19-related testing and treatment services and the potential negative immigration ramifications of using these services. These results suggest that programs for COVID-19-related testing, contact tracing, and vaccine administration that are designed to allay immigration concerns are needed.

Effects of Implementation and Enforcement Differences in Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs in 3 States: Connecticut, Kentucky, and Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) were designed to curb opioid misuse and diversion by tracking scheduled medications prescribed by medical providers and dispensed by pharmacies. The effects of PDMPs on opioid prescription, misuse and overdose rates have been mixed due in part to variability in states' PDMPs and difficulties measuring this complexity, and a lack of attention to implementation and enforcement of PDMP components. The current study uses qualitative interviews with key informants from 3 states with different PDMPs, Connecticut, Kentucky and Wisconsin to explore differences in the characteristics of the PDMPs in each state; how they are implemented, monitored and enforced; and unintended negative consequences of these programs. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with key informants from each state representing the following sectors: PDMP and pain clinic regulation agencies, Medicaid programs, state licensing boards, pharmacies, emergency medicine departments, pain management clinics, first responders, drug courts, drug treatment programs, medication assisted treatment (MAT) providers, and harm reduction organizations. Interview guides explored participants' experiences with and opinions of PDMPs according to their roles. Data analysis was conducted using a collaborative, constant comparison method. RESULTS: While all 3 states had mandated registration and reporting requirements, the states differed in the implementation and enforcement of these and the extent to which provider prescribing was monitored. These, in turn, influenced how medical providers perceived the PDMP and changed how providers prescribed opioids. Unintended consequences of state PDMPs included under-prescribing for pain and "dumping" patients who were long term users of opioids or who had developed opioid use disorders and may explain the increase in illicit heroin or opioid use. CONCLUSION: State PDMPs with similar mandates may differ greatly in implementation and enforcement. These differences are important to consider when determining the effects of PDMPs on opioid misuse and overdose.

Developing an inclusive Safe Dates program for sexual and gender minority adolescents: A pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the prevalence and negative consequences of dating violence among sexual and gender minority (SGM) adolescents, few prevention programs address dating violence for these groups. We describe the adaptation of the evidence-based Safe Dates dating violence prevention program to be inclusive of SGM adolescents and the outcome of a pilot trial of the expanded curriculum implemented in mixed settings serving both SGM and cisgender, heterosexual youth. METHODS: Following a published framework of curriculum adaptation, we gathered information on SGM adolescents' needs and adapted Safe Dates materials to address SGM-specific risk factors for, and manifestations of, dating violence. We piloted the adapted program in 11 US schools and organizations serving SGM and cisgender, heterosexual youth (N = 156). The average age of participants was 15.11 years (SD = 2.76) at baseline. Participants were diverse with respect to race/ethnicity (26% Black/African American, 24% Hispanic/Latino, 21% White, 7% American Indian/Native Alaskan, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander), gender (56% female), and SGM status (35% SGM). Multi-level models measured change in scores on a written measure of dating violence knowledge from pre-test to post-test. RESULTS: Dating violence knowledge increased significantly. Improvements did not differ by gender (female-identified versus not female-identified) or SGM status. CONCLUSIONS: Results support initial feasibility and efficacy of dating violence prevention programs that include both SGM and cisgender, heterosexual adolescents. The program normalizes diverse SGM identities and encourages participation of youth who are questioning or choosing not to disclose their gender or sexual identities. Larger-scale research should examine effects on dating violence experiences.

Contextual influences on Latino men's sexual and substance use behaviors following immigration to the Midwestern United States.

Objectives: Latinos in the United States experience a disproportionate number of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and higher use of alcohol and illegal drugs, which has been attributed to increases in risk behaviors following immigration. Whereas substantial research documents these behavioral changes, little is known about how immigrants increase their risk or why some immigrants increase their risk and other immigrants do not. This study explored how the social and normative context affects sexual and substance use behaviors among Latino immigrant men in a midsized Midwestern city of the United States.Methods: We interviewed 64 Latino immigrant men recruited from community sites in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (mean age = 32.6 years). Participants reported the social and normative contexts preceding and following immigration, including social networks and support, perceptions of the law, and familiar and peer normative influences.Results: Immigrants attributed changes in their sexual and substance use behaviors to their immigration goals, social support, peer and familial normative influences, and restrictions related to their immigrant status. Immigration for economic and personal advancement was generally protective from behaviors that would interfere with those goals as were extended familial networks that could provide support, resources, and normative control. The need to stay under the radar of authorities, the proportion of Latinos in the community, the social and normative changes associated with immigrants' age, and the higher perceptions of risk for HIV in the United States compared with their home countries also influenced immigrants' sexual and substance use behaviors.Conclusions: Changes in risk behavior after immigration to the United States reflect a combination of social and normative factors and personal goals. Interventions and policies aiming to prevent HIV and substance use among Latino immigrants should understand the contextual conditions that decrease or increase their risk behaviors in the United States.

Considerations for Modernized Criminal HIV Laws and Assessment of Legal Protections Against Release of Identified HIV Surveillance Data for Law Enforcement.

In November 2018, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention distributed guidance to funded agencies under its Integrated HIV Surveillance and Prevention Programs Initiative to support the implementation of the program's third strategy: HIV transmission cluster investigation and outbreak response efforts. Cluster detection seeks to identify persons infected with HIV (diagnosed and undiagnosed) who are linked to infections in single or related sexual and injection drug networks. Identifying expanding clusters allows public health personnel to intervene directly where active HIV transmissions occur.However, in the context of HIV infection where most US states have enacted criminal exposure laws, these efforts have sparked concerns about the protection of HIV surveillance data from court order or subpoena for law enforcement purposes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls for funded agencies to evaluate relevant confidentiality laws to ensure that these are sufficient to protect the confidentiality of HIV surveillance data from use by law enforcement.We present four often overlooked factors about the criminalization of HIV exposure and HIV surveillance data protections that should be considered in statutory assessments.

HIV Testing and Mistaken Beliefs about Immigration Laws.

Evidence suggests that migrants may underutilize USA health care because of misconceptions about immigration-related consequences of health care use. This study aimed to explore whether common misconceptions about the immigration consequences of seeking health care, receiving an HIV test, and being diagnosed with HIV were associated with participant self-report of never having received an HIV test. The study sample comprised 297 adult, sexually active, documented and undocumented Spanish-speaking Latino migrants. Participants completed a cross-sectional survey via ACASI. In multiple logistic regression analyses controlling for sociodemographic variables and HIV stigma, misconceptions about laws emerged as a strong predictor of never having received an HIV test (p < .001). Associations between participants' endorsement of misconceptions and their HIV testing history suggest that incorrect perceptions of laws do deter some subgroups of USA Latino migrants from HIV testing. Identifying misconceptions about negative immigration consequences of engaging in important health behaviors should be a community health research priority.

The Development and Psychometric Properties of the Immigration Law Concerns Scale (ILCS) for HIV Testing.

To develop, pilot test, and conduct psychometric analyses of an innovative scale measuring the influence of perceived immigration laws on Latino migrants' HIV-testing behavior. The Immigration Law Concerns Scale (ILCS) was developed in three phases: Phase 1 involved a review of law and literature, generation of scale items, consultation with project advisors, and subsequent revision of the scale. Phase 2 involved systematic translation- back translation and consensus-based editorial processes conducted by members of a bilingual and multi-national study team. In Phase 3, 339 sexually active, HIV-negative Spanish-speaking, non-citizen Latino migrant adults (both documented and undocumented) completed the scale via audio computer-assisted self-interview. The psychometric properties of the scale were tested with exploratory factor analysis and estimates of reliability coefficients were generated. Bivariate correlations were conducted to test the discriminant and predictive validity of identified factors. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a three-factor, 17-item scale. subscale reliability ranged from 0.72 to 0.79. There were significant associations between the ILCS and the HIV-testing behaviors of participants. Results of the pilot test and psychometric analysis of the ILCS are promising. The scale is reliable and significantly associated with the HIV-testing behaviors of participants. Subscales related to unwanted government attention and concerns about meeting moral character requirements should be refined.

Identifying variability in permanent supportive housing: A comparative effectiveness approach to measuring health outcomes.

Supportive housing has become the dominant model in the United States to provide housing to the chronically homeless and to improve their housing stability and health. Most supportive housing programs follow a "housing first" paradigm modeled after the Pathways to Housing program in New York City. However, components of housing first supportive housing models were poorly defined, and supportive models have varied considerably in their dissemination and implementation to other parts of the country. Recently, research has been conducted to determine the fidelity by which specific housing programs adhere to the Pathways Housing First model. However, evidence regarding which combination of components leads to better health outcomes for particular subpopulations is lacking. This article presents results from qualitative interviews with supportive housing providers in the Chicago, Illinois, metropolitan area. Supportive housing varied according to housing configuration (scattered-site vs. project-based) and service provision model (low-intensity case management, intensive case management and behavioral health), resulting in 6 basic types. Supportive housing programs also differed in services they provided in addition to case management and the extent to which they followed harm-reduction versus abstinence policies. Results showed advantages and disadvantages of each of the 6 basic types. Comparative effectiveness research may help identify which program components lead to better health outcomes among different subpopulations of homeless. Future longitudinal research will use the identified typology and other factors to compare the housing stability and health outcomes of supportive housing residents in programs that differ along these dimensions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Convention Versus Deviance: Moral Agency in Adolescent Gang Members' Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent gang members are a source of concern due to their involvement in criminal activity, violence, substance use, and high-risk sexual behaviors. Adolescent gang theories hypothesize that social institutions, including the family and school, fail to meet the needs of adolescents who therefore feel less attachment to these institutions and find an unconventional institution (i.e. the gang) to meet these needs through the gang. OBJECTIVES: In this paper, we will examine the extent to which social disorganization and social control theories, in particular the rejection of conventional norms and aspirations, match adolescents' subjective reasons for their decisions and their future aspirations. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2013, we conducted in-depth interviews with 58 gang members between the ages of 14 to 19. Interviews were coded for key themes using the constant comparison method. RESULTS: Social disorganization and social control theories have both value and limitations in explaining reasons why adolescents join gangs and engage in criminal behaviors. Participants saw many of their aspirations blocked by negative school experiences and limited economic opportunities. Gangs provided a social organization in which to sell drugs. However, gang members did not reject conventional norms and aspirations. Rather, they view themselves as making decisions to survive in the present while recognizing that these strategies will not continue to work in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Gang members value education and aspire to obtain legal employment. Thus, interventions to help adolescent gang members with the immediate financial pressures that lead them to sell drugs may be particularly effective.

Criminalization of HIV Exposure: A Review of Empirical Studies in the United States.

This review of literature identifies and describes US empirical studies on the criminalization of HIV exposure, examines findings on key questions about these laws, highlights knowledge gaps, and sets a course for future research. Studies published between 1990 and 2014 were identified through key word searches of relevant electronic databases and discussions with experts. Twenty-five empirical studies were identified. Sixteen of these studies used quantitative methods with more than half of these being cross-sectional survey studies. Study samples included male and female HIV-positive persons, HIV-positive and -negative men who have sex with men, public health personnel, and medical providers. Research questions addressed awareness of and attitudes toward HIV exposure laws, potential influences of these laws on seropositive status disclosure for persons living with HIV, HIV testing for HIV-negative persons, safer sex practices for both groups, and associations between HIV exposure laws and HIV-related stigma. Surveys of the laws and studies of enforcement practices were also conducted. Attention should be shifted from examining attitudes about these laws to exploring their potential influence on public health practices and behaviors related to the HIV continuum of care. Studies examining enforcement and prosecution practices are also needed. Adapting a theoretical framework in future research may be useful in better understanding the influence of HIV exposure laws on HIV risk behaviors.