Couple-Centered HIV Prevention and Care: Endorsement, Practice and Uncertainty among US Healthcare Providers in Western-Central Upstate New York

Introduction

Efforts to end the HIV epidemic (EtHE), must address persistent contributors to ongoing HIV transmission at different levels of influence. Sex-based HIV transmission (penetrative vaginal and anal) dominates the mode of HIV acquisition in the U.S., with 70% of transmission occurring between male same-sex partners, and 22 % were among hetero-sex partners.¹ The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that regardless of sex, sexual orientation or gender expression, a quarter of people living with HIV (PLWH) were not diagnosed, another quarter diagnosed did not receive care, and a third were not virally suppressed.² Furthermore, regardless of sexual orientation, it is estimated that 40-60% of HIV transmission occurs among intimate partners known to be already living with HIV infection. Epidemiology also shows that of the 23% of U.S. Black and Hispanic persons eligible for pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV (PrEP), only 9% were actually prescribed.³ Contextual factors that contribute to persistent transmission, such as structural violence and discrimination, have a long-standing impact on HIV prevention and care and significantly contribute to current health disparities at the systemic and societal levels.^4,5 In addition to contextual factors, interpersonal factors pose as the most persistent and more proximal determinants of ongoing HIV infection and optimal prevention and care.

Interpersonal relationships like those between health providers and health consumers, in tandem with provider characteristics, perspectives and certainty concerning bio-medical interventions, have demonstrated to be critical determinants of health consumers awareness, willingness, and access to HIV interventions. For example, one study⁶ found that African-American female adolescents perceived providers as being judgmental and uncomfortable when discussing STIs susceptibility, which resulted in these adolescent girls hesitating to disclose health information in the clinical setting. Leblanc et al. (2019) reported provider perspectives on implementing couples-centered HIV testing and counseling CHTC. They found that providers hesitation was in part due to their colleagues’ discomfort in the provision of HIV screening and care, which would subsequently impede any efforts to adopt recommended guidelines to engage people and their partners in joint screening.⁷ Another study⁸ found that lack of provider comfort in sexual health promotion resulted in low PrEP uptake among men who have sex with men (MSM). Yet another study⁹ further demonstrated that providers in training held racist beliefs that resulted in presumptive withholding of PrEP from Black MSM. These findings demonstrate the role of provider comfort, perspectives, biases, and practice on the potential and actual uptake of HIV and related biomedical interventions. Healthcare providers make clinical judgments about health consumers eligibility for engagement across the HIV prevention and care continuum, however less than half the world’s population who are sexually active have ever screened for HIV infection, an intervention crucial for a status-neutral approach and access to the myriad of behavioral and biomedical.

A second dimension of interpersonal relationships that impacts HIV prevention and care, is that between intimate partners. Perceptions on what constitutes a couple may differ between providers and their patients, and this may have implications on how providers engage with health consumers in HIV/STI prevention and care practice. Couples and other self-defined intimate partners need to be considered for intervention and biomedical support, given that ∼50% of new HIV infections in the U.S. are partner-based, and in that among those newly diagnosed were with partners known to be living with HIV infection. And that increasing rates of STIs, require a more robust approach beyond existing partner therapy modalities.^10,11 Additionally, the motivation for being in a relationship and to engage in behaviors as intimate partners are known determinants of the uptake of HIV prevention interventions. ¹²

Couple’s HIV testing and counseling (CHTC) began as an opportunity to facilitate disclosure following HIV screening, and largely implemented in antenatal services outside of the U.S.^13–18 CHTC has evolved as a strategy to address the interpersonal attributes of HIV susceptibility, persistent transmission, and suboptimal engagement in HIV care. This strategy has gathered considerable empirical support for its effectiveness and efficaciousness in reducing the number of sexual partners in tandem with condomless sexual acts, increasing the ease of partner disclosure among those living with HIV, and sustaining linkages to medical care for those who are diagnosed with HIV.^13–18 It is a mechanism that has been shown to optimize biomedical advances like rART, pre– and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP, PEP), and various HIV screening modalities (i.e., home-based HIV screening).¹⁹ Furthermore, it has been successful among male same-sex couples in reducing substance use and sex-based HIV susceptibility in U.S. settings, and there is acceptability (albeit no real sustained effort) for such an approach among U.S. heterosexual couples.^20–22 Despite 30+ years of evidence, health consumers and providers globally endorsing this approach, and the existence of U.S. national implementation guidelines, couple-centered approaches to HIV prevention and care remain underutilized in the U.S. ^23,24

Given the critical role of health providers in the uptake of HV prevention and care strategies, the World Health Organization recommends that ascertainment of healthcare provider perspective on CHTC and practice is imperative to inform intervention development and implementation. The literature on providers’ perspectives of couples-based HIV testing and counseling in the U.S. is scant, but ours and other previous work has showcased provider perspectives and willingness to pursue CHTC as a modality to address ongoing community level transmission.²⁵ Uptake of CHTC and other partner-based services are challenged in part by, Western approaches to medicine, a for-profit driven healthcare system that engages individuals without full consideration for their relationships, and providers not adequately trained or have restrictions imposed on their scope of practice.²⁶ Additionally, guidance on implementation in the U.S. may be inadequate due to the diversity in sexual activity and subsequent disparity among health consumers who would benefit from these services. Also, health settings may not be well equipped to implement comprehensive and HIV status neutral services, and service reimbursement does not adequately support interpersonal factors associated with health promotion and disease prevention. Therefore, this study builds on seminal work in the Southeast U.S.⁷ and seeks to characterize provider perspective on CHTC and experience with engaging partners in WCNY State. Such knowledge is necessary to address a critical gap in evidence-based interventions aimed to enhance provider interactions with couples and patients who are partnered seeking HIV prevention and care services to reduce HIV infections. This knowledge is essential for intervention development, and training healthcare providers to identify and overcome sources of discomfort, and biases in their interactions with people and subsequently couples in need of HIV prevention services and care.

Western/Central New York (WCNY) State is comprised of both a significant rural population and small urban centers. These centers are recovering from deindustrialization with the influx of emerging industries, has one of the highest levels of child poverty in the country, and experiences substantial increases in HIV/STI rates.²⁷ In New York State (excluding New York City), the context of HIV transmission in WCNY State is seen primarily among an older adolescent/young adult population, in the midst of a significant increase in other STIs including congenital syphilis (even before the COVID pandemic commenced).²⁸ The area is also experiencing an increase in mortality related to substance use, and a substantial increase in community-level violence including hate crimes, state-sanctioned and civilian murder.²⁹ Health policy changes in HIV/STI care, like updated local guidelines for expedited partner therapy (EPT), have not been optimized and gross disparities in PrEP prescription showcases that more contextual approaches are warranted in efforts toward ending the HIV epidemic.³⁰ To that end, given the influence of provider perspective and practice in the uptake of HIV/STI prevention and care strategies, this inquiry seeks to illuminate perspectives of CHTC and describe couple/partner-based practices among health providers whose engage in sexual and reproductive health service provision in WCNY State.

Methods

We approached this inquiry with a qualitative description design. This allowed us to not impose a theoretical framework on provider perspective and practice, and allowed for a direct description of providers perspectives and description of their subjective experiences.³¹Additionally, it’s increasingly an approach used in intervention development.³² Although there is evidence that CHTC is an effective strategy, we approached data collection to include inquiry about recommendations for implementation. This approach allowed for flexibility in decision making as the research process progressed. In alignment with our approach, we utilized purposive sampling to recruit health providers. Employing maximum variation techniques,³² we recruited providers during grand rounds or meetings with leadership at local health facilities, community forums, via online forums, professional networks, and snowball sampling. Facility based recruitment sought settings in which sexual and reproductive health services are either the main service provided or one of the main services offered. Potential subjects were invited to contact research team members via email and complete a study information form that included additional details about the study, solicited provider demographics and requested them to indicate their willingness to participate in an in-depth interview. This served as their consent to participate in the study. Once subjects indicated their interest and completed the demographic form, indicated their willingness to participate in the study via the information sheet, an interview time was scheduled via zoom.

In-depth interviews were facilitated by a semi-structured topic guide and included open-ended questions about sexual health promotion, HIV/STI prevention and care, and implementation. All interviews were conducted virtually by the lead principal investigator (PI) and two research assistants at a time most convenient to the healthcare provider, to accommodate healthcare provider schedules and the onset of COVID-19 restrictions. Interviews were audiotaped to capture participants insights and allowed a focus on active listening, probing, and maintaining eye contact via zoom, to foster rapport and open in-depth conversation. The data collection and analysis were concurrent processes³³ and data was managed in MAXQDA. Thematic analysis commenced with a review of the interview guide and topics; a review of a subset of transcripts; and ongoing peer debriefings to ensure that the meaning, interpretation, and analytic approach were uniform among the primary analysis team.³⁴ Analysis involved reading and re-reading transcripts to develop a coding structure that reflected both deductive categorizing of topics identified a priori and inductive emergent thematic patterns in the data, resulting in 4 thematic categories.

Results

Providers (N = 27) were recruited (September 2019 – February 2021) from Western/Central New York State representing an array of medical providers: registered nurses (RN; N = 2), nurse practitioners (NP; N = 12), physician assistants (PA; N = 4), medical doctors (physicans; N = 7) and a medical assistant (MA; N = 1). Providers were mainly female (N=24), aged 24 to 60 years old, and ranged in practice from 1 to 25 years. Four thematic categories pertaining to healthcare provider perspectives on CHTC and experiences with a partner-centered approach: Perspectives on engaging partners and couples-centered sexual health promotion; Providers’ experiences with patients and partners in HIV prevention and care; Provider endorsement of couple-centered HIV testing and counseling (CHTC); and Perceived CHTC implementation determinants.

For the exception of two medical doctors with over 20 years’ experience each, no participant had heard of CHTC or the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) program, Testing Together or any other iteration of this strategy. Before discussing their perspectives on CHTC, providers were asked about their general perspectives on engaging couples or partners in care and sexual health promotion and HIV specifically. Overall, perspectives contained a range of reflections about this approach that were seemingly influenced by actual experiences with considering a patient’s partner, engaging couples jointly or reflecting on a hypothetical situation in which a partner-based or couple-centered approach would be warranted.

Perspectives on engaging partners and couples-centered sexual health promotion

Providers were asked about their perspectives on engaging patients and their partners (couples) in sexual health services. Overall providers endorsed engaging couples and utilizing a joint approach based on their own experiences with patients. They endorsed engaging patients and their partners due to what they believed to be the ability to enhance provider-patient communication, a time-efficient approach for communicating key messaging and augment care bidirectionally.

“I just love the idea of bringing people together, and instead of saying it eight times, saying it fewer times, in this case, instead of saying it twice to two separate people, saying it once to them both and then they both get to hear each other’s questions and answers…”Nurse Practitioner, 10 yrs., Women’s Health

Providers also perceived partner-based approaches as ensuring that both the patient and their partner understand health information, especially in the context where some information regarding treatment and transmission for certain STIs can be misunderstood. This was perceived as being of added significance in the patient-provider interaction and communication, especially when there are health implications for the partner. Further, providers perceived that jointly engaging partners would not only ensure health information is accurately disseminated to the partner of their patients and presumably jointly understood, but was perceived to be a way to discuss complicated health issues. Providers noted that such communication about difficult issues may sometimes warrant both partners to be engaged in a health visit to ensure that a particular health intervention is accurately considered and to facilitate uptake.

“I can see the benefits of seeing couples together, especially for something like PrEP…I can see how it can be helpful, and maybe even enhance compliance with taking medicine some things like that if partners are involved in their care as well.”“I try really hard to invite partners into the room for any kind of visit that people feel comfortable having…I think it’s important to make space for people to have private conversations and…to have support people there with them to help them remember recommendations and talk about things in a way that helps it cement in their head…it’s a really frequent thing that I’m saying I wish that I have a partner here in the room with them to navigate this conversation…”Physician, 9 yrs., Ob/GYN

Providers’ experiences with patients and partners in HIV prevention and care

Several providers reported experiences whereby they either engaged individuals in HIV prevention and care which included a focused conversation regarding partners (partner-based); or a more explicit engagement with both partners in the same space and time (couple-centered). In a partner-based approach, providers reported on conversations and practice that revolved around patient education about HIV/STI treatment, transmission and partner implications. Providers described a more couple-centered approach focused on actively engaging both sex partners or couples in joint conversations or their practice to address the presence of or susceptibility to HIV or STI acquisition.

Partner-based engagement consisted of provider communication with patients about partners. Providers described that some health assessment information had to be obtained through one-on-one conversations since there were issues that would possibly not be addressed with both partners. These conversation with patients however considers the role of partners, like intimate partner violence, asking about non-monogamous relationships or the involvement of people not included in the main partnership.

“…it’s very important to have that one on one interaction without a partner there, for doing things like you know asking about other exposures, outside of that relationship and safety in sexual relationships and intimate partner violence, things like that, that you can’t ask in front someone else…and I am not infrequently in the position of having conversations with couples together, where either I or one of my [practice] partners is the doctor for both members…one partner of the couple is my patient, and the other one doesn’t have a physician”Physician, 9 yrs., family medicine

Providers reported experiences with patients regarding recurrent diagnoses of sexually transmitted infections or conversations to facilitate partner disclosure to partners and partner treatment. Providers were also responsive to an index patients request for assistance in communicating with their partner about their STI.

“…herpes and then also with genital warts, these are the ones where it often comes where I will have a conversation… sometimes I will invite the partner to come in the exam room… I’ve done that also on the phone… that will be for patients who…don’t know how to talk to their partner or their partner has a ton of questions… I think it just helps the patient…they don’t remember everything I am saying, so it helps them to answer questions, or understand the ongoing ramifications…”Nurse Practitioner, 10 yrs., Women’s Health.

In the context of a new STI diagnosis, providers engaged patients in conversation to facilitate engagement in care, treatment, disclosure, and partner screening. A partner-based approach also included education to help patients understand the transmission and treatment of certain STIs over others (HIV and herpes versus Chlamydia and Gonorrhea) and the implications for partner-based transmission.

“Honestly, the worst diagnosis to tell anyone about is herpes…people cry, people think their lives are over……herpes has like the worst stigma of any STI and I also think it’s not well understood …. I think people have this idea…they won’t be able to sex with anyone again…it may be just misunderstandings about herpes…and just the idea of like, ‘how am I gonna tell my partner?’ ‘And when did I get this?’Nurse Practitioner, 10 yrs., Women’s Health

At other times, partner-based engagement included providers whose communication was with patients whose greatest concern was maintaining the integrity of their intimate relationship. Relatedly, providers also reported engaging with patients who utilized HIV screening as an opportunity to facilitate disclosure of their known HIV serostatus to a partner. This approach may include facilitating partner screening for HIV, in which the interaction between the patient and provider may morph into a more couple-centered approach whereby a patient and partner are seen jointly.

“…we have somebody who is truly newly diagnosed [with HIV] who is devastated and has the fears of rejection and “How am I going to tell my partner?” and all of this. Then you have the person who is a known positive, who’s been afraid to tell their partner. And we work with that person to try to find a way and sometimes those people will come in and have a test, even though they’re a known positive, and claim it to be a new diagnosis so that they can inform their partner that they have HIV.”Nurse-Registered Nurse, 6 yrs., sexual/reproductive health

Couples engagement was also perceived to be a way to get a sense of a patient’s support system and better contextualize their interpersonal lives. This insight influences the provider-patient relationship and subsequent care for the patient.

“…people are already going to each other’s visits and it’s great… it augments health care if there’s 2 people…I’ve almost always found it helpful when a partner is there to give us a little bit more information…like last week this postpartum lady had depression … her husband knew a lot more detail ….it gave me an idea of what type of support she had at home… I was talking to both of them equally about what they can do to help each other and especially during this time that was really challenging.”Nurse-Midwife, 8 yrs., sexual/reproductive health

Provider endorsement of couple-centered HIV testing and counseling (CHTC)

Discussion

Research and implementation studies have determined that CHTC is an effective strategy to engage people not aware of their HIV status and those who are in HIV serodifferent relationships. Couple centered approaches to HIV were also fundamental to demonstrating the efficacy of HIV biomedical interventions. Study findings here revealed that the current sample of health care providers overall endorsed CHTC as an HIV testing and care engagement modality. Other studies have found the same, for example in the U.S., formative work has found that both health consumers and health providers, support active couple-based modalities for HIV/STI prevention and care^15,35 as a way for mitigating transmission. Leblanc et al. (2019) found that among 22 U.S. health providers endorsed CHTC and thought that it made sense when attempting to mitigate HIV transmission between partners and within communities. In the South Florida based sample, providers were overall willing to engage in CHTC implementation, and as in the current sample, had some experience engaging couples/partners in STI screening and care and sexual health more broadly. These experiences and practices were motivated by provider’s motivation to meet patient needs to facilitate STI disclosure and partner treatment.^7,25 Participants in the current study also reported a willingness to facilitate CHTC and were comfortable conceptualizing the strategy at their place of practice with some considerations. The salience of CHTC was attributable to providers practical experiences with engaging patients seeking HIV, but primarily STI services, whereby they felt compelled to engage patients and consider their patient’s partners. No provider reported engaging couples as routine practice for HIV or STI prevention and care. However most reported being adaptive in their practice to engage partners together either when requested by the patient to facilitate education or when there was perceived benefit to include the partner of patients in the diagnosis and treatment of STIs. Despite this practice no one in the current sample mentioned or spoke to existing guidelines like CHTC or even partner notification and expedited partner therapy to help mitigate STI transmission and address community-level persistence of HIV and other STIs.

Provider endorsement of CHTC seemed largely due to the strategy being perceived as a facilitator to enhance patient-provider engagement in HIV and other STI treatment and care, especially in the communication and dissemination of information among partners.³⁶ One of the most prominent features of provider CHTC endorsement is the strategy’s ability to enhance sexual health literacy among patients and patient’s partners. Providers reported that health literacy needs regarding HIV/STI testing and diagnosis, but primarily treatment regimens for STIs that have bearing on the health of both partners, warranted at times a joint approach. Providers also shared that CHTC may also attend to provider burden by not engaging in time-consuming, repetitive health education to mitigate HIV/STI transmission between partners. An approach like CHTC which encourages jointly engaging partners in HIV/STI screening and care, can ensure that the STI and sexual health practices are patient-centered and tailored to the behaviors and specific health needs of patients and their partners. Providers with experience meeting couples/partners noted the benefit of receiving and giving health information and how this may enhance care. Research has shown that patient health literacy in HIV and other STI care has a bearing on the uptake of appropriate interventions and may be one of the most important elements contributing to persistent HIV/STI transmission.³⁷ Research has also demonstrated that health literacy, in tandem with patient-provider communication and trust, has a bearing on the uptake of prevention and engagement in treatment strategies.^33,38,39 Therefore, provider practice that can enhance health literacy and that is built on trust between partners and with providers warrant routinization in sexual health promotion practice. Studies have demonstrated the role of provider communication in promoting health literacy along HIV Care Continuum. One study, found that trust with providers was facilitated via provider communication which had bearing on the retention in care among Black women living with HIV infection.⁴⁰ However, adequate patient education can be perceived as time-consuming and challenged by competing priorities, and health systems that disallow robust patient engagement.⁴¹ Given the importance of this feature in the context of STIs care, patient engagement modalities that can ease, expedite and assist in patient education and treatment, like CHTC, warrant consideration and uptake.^42,43

Provider uncertainty in an endorsement of CHTC was based on provider’s experiences with patient populations that have an exceptional susceptibility to HIV and other STIs. Historically provider uncertainty in the HIV prevention/STI care context was more to do with understanding and adopting HIV medication regimens for people living with HIV and provider competencies.⁴⁴ Current evidence of provider uncertainty has been shown in the inadequate provision of PrEP for key populations, related to provider attributes regarding their endorsement of certain key concepts like U=U, and the efficacy of PrEP. (1) Another uncertainty is evident in suboptimal uptake and provision of HPV vaccination in the U.S. and globally. One systematic review found that health providers’ perspectives on HPV and HPV vaccination impeded uptake, and that personal biases may play a role.⁴⁵ In addition to provider perceived competence, providers’ uncertainty in the current study was related to the perceived inability to address potential couple discord in a joint health session and lack of transparency of partners’ behaviors which impacts health education and appropriate care. Some of this uncertainty was based on concerns of relationship violence and appeared to influence how some providers spoke about their facility’s preparedness and hypothetical implementation of CHTC. Though, research has shown that CHTC does not increase intimate partner violence in couples.⁴⁶ Provider uncertainty also involved whether communities would find CHTC an attractive strategy. Relationship discord and various dimensions of IPV between partners is a feature in STI transmission and recurrent infection.⁴⁷ However, research with couples have demonstrated even when this feature is present, couples/partners will engage in joint approaches to mitigate transmission.⁴⁷ Given this context, provider uncertainty in this regard would need to be addressed by ensuring that any provider training includes IPV screening and referral protocols for resources for couples to access. Research has demonstrated that when such guidelines are present within health facilities providers are motivated to engage in certain interventions resulting in improved patient outcomes. To address this and other causes for provider uncertainty, previous work on provider perception of CHTC, included a recommendation that a team-based approach is utilized to address issues like potential IPV and to leverage the skills and expertise of an interdisciplinary team in the clinical space.⁷ Although no provider mentioned a team-based approach to implementation or current practices in their facility, such approaches may be worth curating in certain settings in Western-Central New York State.

Some established barriers to couples-based approaches include, power dynamics within relationships, and HIV stigma.^48,49 As one provider noted, although they fully endorsed the strategy and would promote it for their patients, due to HIV stigma, they questioned partners commitment in the context of a new HIV diagnosis. HIV stigma has been demonstrated to be one of the primary determinants of HIV prevention and care efforts. ⁵⁰ However research demonstrates that with adequate health literacy regarding antiretrovirals for prevention and treatment, partners who want to remain committed do.⁵¹ It is also at these encounters whereby messaging regarding Undetectable=Untransmittable (U=U) and PrEP becomes crucial for patient and partners understanding and literacy about HIV/STI transmission, ART uptake, and maintenance of relationships should this be a goal.⁵² However this requires that providers are aware and comfortable with the concept of one, serodiscordance, then U=U and lastly the efficacy and diversity of PrEP relevancy for couples. Research demonstrates that there remains provider uncertainty in all these areas indicating research needs and intervention for this group of providers. ^44,52,53

Lastly, provider uncertainty was related to provider perspectives of their facility’s willingness and preparedness to implement CHTC, and whether institutional support and flexibility in existing protocols can allow for CHTC implementation. This flexibility and support pertained to the ability to see partners together and support staff facilitating some of the patient registration, scheduling processes, and testing. It was perceived that CHTC could eliminate multiple visits by a patient and their partner if they could be seen together. This could alleviate known issues with provider shortages and patient wait times for an appointment. Providers also noted billing of joint services being a concern and contemplated how services could be rendered with the current healthcare reimbursement structure. Seminal work conducted in South Florida revealed that providers believed CHTC to be a viable intervention, but also noted billing for CHTC and other partner services was also a concern and posed a barrier to CHTC implementation.¹⁵

Akin to CHTC, partner notification and expedited partner therapy are strategies intended to New York State partner notification is an opportunity to implement certain components of CHTC in that disclosure and partner treatment are program goals Partner notification guidelines for certain STIs give direction to mitigating transmission and ensuring adequate treatment for partners of patients. However national guidelines and subsequent practice are underutilized. Expedited partner therapy (EPT) which like CHTC has demonstrated efficaciousness in reducing recurrent STIs. It is partner treatment specific modality to chlamydia and gonorrhea and not of other STIs which may hold greater stigma, like herpes,¹¹ and hence warrant greater provider involvement as mentioned by participants in this study. Research has demonstrated that challenges to EPT utilization are multi-level and systematic, but that healthcare provider comfort and uncertainty plays an integral role in implementation. In the current study, providers with couple/partner-based experiences to address STI diagnoses and treatment, and those without but who endorsed the approach demonstrated a level of comfort to engage patients and their partners jointly either in-person or remotely. They also demonstrated awareness of the importance of meeting patients’ needs and CHTC may be a modality that does. The underutilization of existing national CHTC and EPT guidelines to address interpersonal attributes of HIV/STI transmission, in tandem with, provider uncertainty speaks to a need for enhanced provider training. Provider training would comprise that as offered within education curriculums and as continuing education opportunities, which would address provider uncertainty in management of sexually transmitted disease prevention, specifically within couples.

Conclusion

This study contributes to efforts to end the HIV epidemic (EtHE), specifically provider endorsement and perceived considerations for CHTC implementation. Health providers are central to the uptake of HIV/STI interventions hence, it is critical to understand their perspectives and perceived determinants for implementation. This study reported on the perspectives and practices of health providers in Western/Central New York State. Health providers reported on their experiences with engaging patients and considering partners in sexual health promotion including STI care. Couple-centered approaches, CHTC, expands health to be inclusive beyond the individual and has holistic interpersonal features which mitigates HIV/STI transmission, and further benefits in the uptake of biomedical treatment and prevention. Provider perspectives were cemented in their experience with engaging their couples susceptible to and seeking treatment for STIs including HIV. These perspectives are particularly important to improve HIV counseling and treatment, address HIV stigma and confront the rise in STIs. Findings from this current study indicate that providers have patient engagement experiences that involve patient’s intimate partners in clinical practice. Such engagement or prospective engagement influenced their endorsement of CHTC as an approach that addresses stigma, health literacy, and interpersonal communication regarding HIV and other STIs. CHTC was perceived as a way of addressing not only HIV transmission but mainly other STIs, which have dramatically increased in Western New York, and enhancing patient-provider engagement to facilitate health literacy pertaining to STIs and sexual health more broadly.

As efforts to end the HIV epidemic intensify, and jurisdictions across New York State experience substantial increases in bacterial and viral STIs, interventions to enhance HIV/STI screening and expedited treatment require greater consideration and implementation. CHTC is such a strategy that embodies U=U as a way to normalize HIV prevention and care, has demonstrated efficacy in optimizing the HIV status-neutral continuum.^13,54 The HIV status-neutral continuum is a reframing that centers on HIV screening and highlights the importance of antiviral therapies in HIV prevention and care. Future research and efforts should address provider uncertainty with U=U and subsequent CHTC. As well as facilitate HIV/STI partner-based interventions, and provider perceived facility level implementation needs for CHTC. Lastly, future health service research and healthcare practice should address CHTC determinants.