Kristina E. Bowles
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Kristina E. Bowles.
AIDS | 2013
Alexandra B. Balaji; Kristina E. Bowles; Binh Le; Gabriela Paz-Bailey; Alexandra M. Oster
Objective:To estimate HIV prevalence, annual HIV incidence density, and factors associated with HIV infection among young MSM in the United States. Design:The 2008 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System (NHBS), a cross-sectional survey conducted in 21 US cities. Methods:NHBS respondents included in the analysis were MSM aged 18–24 with a valid HIV test who reported at least one male sex partner in the past year. We calculated HIV prevalence and estimated annual incidence density (number of HIV infections/total number of person-years at risk). Generalized estimating equations were used to determine factors associated with testing positive for HIV. Results:Of 1889 young MSM, 198 (10%) had a positive HIV test; of these, 136 (69%) did not report previously testing HIV positive when interviewed. Estimated annual HIV incidence density was 2.9%; incidence was highest for blacks. Among young MSM who did not report being HIV infected, factors associated with testing HIV positive included black race; less than high school education; using both alcohol and drugs before or during last sex; having an HIV test more than 12 months ago; and reporting a visit to a medical provider in the past year. Conclusion:HIV prevalence and estimated incidence density for young MSM were high. Individual risk behaviors did not fully explain HIV risk, emphasizing the need to address sociodemographic and structural-level factors in public health interventions targeted toward young MSM.
Public Health Reports | 2008
Kristina E. Bowles; Hollie A. Clark; Eric Tai; Patrick S. Sullivan; Binwei Song; Jenny Tsang; Craig A. Dietz; Julita Mir; Azul Mares-DelGrasso; Cindy Calhoun; Daisy Aguirre; Cicily Emerson; James D. Heffelfinger
Objectives. The goals of this project were to assess the feasibility of conducting rapid human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing in outreach and community settings to increase knowledge of HIV serostatus among groups disproportionately affected by HIV and to identify effective nonclinical venues for recruiting people in the targeted populations. Methods. Community-based organizations (CBOs) in seven U.S. cities conducted rapid HIV testing in outreach and community settings, including public parks, homeless shelters, and bars. People with reactive preliminary positive test results received confirmatory testing, and people confirmed to be HIV-positive were referred to health-care and prevention services. Results. A total of 23,900 people received rapid HIV testing. Of the 267 people (1.1%) with newly diagnosed HIV infection, 75% received their confirmatory test results and 64% were referred to care. Seventy-six percent were from racial/ethnic minority groups, and 58% identified themselves as men who have sex with men, 72% of whom reported having multiple sex partners in the past year. Venues with the highest proportion of new HIV diagnoses were bathhouses, social service organizations, and needle-exchange programs. The acceptance rate for testing was 60% among sites collecting this information. Conclusions. Findings from this demonstration project indicate that offering rapid HIV testing in outreach and community settings is a feasible approach for reaching members of minority groups and people at high risk for HIV infection. The project identified venues that would be important to target and offered lessons that could be used by other CBOs to design and implement similar programs in the future.
Clinical Infectious Diseases | 2011
Bryce D. Smith; Eyasu H. Teshale; Amy Jewett; Cindy M. Weinbaum; Alan Neaigus; Holly Hagan; Sam M. Jenness; Sharon K. Melville; Richard D. Burt; Hanne Thiede; Alia Al-Tayyib; Praveen R. Pannala; IIsa W. Miles; Alexa M. Oster; Amanda Smith; Teresa Finlayson; Kristina E. Bowles; Elizabeth DiNenno
SUMMARY Performance characteristics of rapid assays for hepatitis C virus antibody were evaluated in 4 National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System injection drug use sites. The highest assay-specific sensitivities achieved for the Chembio, MedMira and OraSure tests were 94.0%, 78.9%, and 97.4%, respectively; the highest specificities were 97.7%, 83.3%, and 100%, respectively. BACKGROUND The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 4.1 million Americans have been infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and 75%-80% of them are living with chronic HCV infection, many unaware of their infection. Persons who inject drugs (PWID) account for 57.5% of all persons with HCV antibody (anti-HCV) in the United States. Currently no point-of-care tests for HCV infection are approved for use in the United States. METHODS Surveys and testing for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and anti-HCV were conducted among persons who reported injection drug use in the past 12 months as part of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System in 2009. The sensitivity and specificity of point-of-care tests (finger-stick and 2 oral fluid rapid assays) from 3 manufacturers (Chembio, MedMira, and OraSure) were evaluated in field settings in 4 US cities. RESULTS Sensitivity (78.9%-97.4%) and specificity (80.0%-100.0%) were variable across assays and sites. The highest assay-specific sensitivities achieved for the Chembio, MedMira, and OraSure tests were 94.0%, 78.9% and 97.4%, respectively; the highest specificities were 97.7%, 83.3%, and 100%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, false-negative anti-HCV results were associated with HIV positivity for the Chembio oral assay (adjusted odds ratio, 8.4-9.1; P < .01) in 1 site (New York City). CONCLUSIONS Sensitive rapid anti-HCV assays are appropriate and feasible for high-prevalence, high-risk populations such as PWID, who can be reached through social service settings such as syringe exchange programs and methadone maintenance treatment programs.
Public Health Reports | 2008
Hollie A. Clark; Kristina E. Bowles; Binwei Song; James D. Heffelfinger
Objectives. The goals of this research were to evaluate perceptions of staff about the effectiveness of methods used by eight community-based organizations (CBOs) to implement human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) counseling and rapid testing in community and outreach settings in seven U.S. cities, and to identify operational challenges. Methods. A survey was administered to CBO staff to determine their perceptions about the effectiveness of methods used to select testing venues, promote their testing programs, recruit people for testing, provide test results, and link HIV-positive people to health care. Using a Likert scale, respondents rated the effectiveness of methods, their agreement with statements about using mobile testing units (MTUs) and rapid HIV test kits, and operational challenges. Results. Most respondents perceived the methods they used for selecting testing venues, and particularly using recommendations from people receiving testing, to be effective. Most respondents also thought their promotional activities were effective. Respondents believed that using MTUs improved their capacity to reach high-risk individuals, but that MTUs were associated with substantial challenges (e.g., costs to purchase and maintain them). Programmatic challenges included training staff to provide counseling and testing, locating and providing confirmatory test results to people with reactive rapid tests, and sustaining testing programs. Conclusions. CBO staff thought the methods used to select venues for HIV testing were effective and that using MTUs increased their ability to provide testing to high-risk individuals. However, using MTUs was expensive and posed logistical difficulties. CBOs planning to implement similar programs should take these findings into consideration and pay particular attention to training needs and program sustainability.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases | 2017
Erin M. Kahle; Elissa Meites; R. Craig Sineath; Muazzam Nasrullah; Kristina E. Bowles; Elizabeth DiNenno; Patrick S. Sullivan; Travis Sanchez
Abstract National guidelines recommend annual human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/sexually transmitted disease testing for sexually active men who have sex with men (MSM) and vaccination against human papillomavirus for MSM through age 26. A 2012 online survey of 2,794 MSM found that 51%, 36%, and 14% reported receiving human immunodeficiency virus testing, sexually transmitted disease testing, and human papillomavirus vaccination, respectively.
Public Health Reports | 2018
Elizabeth DiNenno; Joseph Prejean; Kevin P. Delaney; Kristina E. Bowles; Tricia Martin; Amrita Tailor; Gema Dumitru; Mary M. Mullins; Angela B. Hutchinson; Amy Lansky
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended in 2006 that sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) be screened for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) at least annually. A workgroup comprising CDC and external experts conducted a systematic review of the literature, including benefits, harms, acceptability, and feasibility of annual versus more frequent screening among MSM, to determine whether evidence was sufficient to change the current recommendation. Four consultations with managers of public and nonprofit HIV testing programs, clinics, and mathematical modeling experts were conducted to provide input on the programmatic and scientific evidence. Mathematical models predicted that more frequent than annual screening of MSM could prevent some new HIV infections and would be more cost-effective than annual screening, but this evidence was considered insufficient due to study design. Evidence supports CDC’s current recommendation that sexually active MSM be screened at least annually. However, some MSM might benefit from more frequent screening. Future research should evaluate which MSM subpopulations would benefit most from more frequent HIV screening.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report | 2017
Elizabeth DiNenno; Joseph Prejean; Kathleen L. Irwin; Kevin P. Delaney; Kristina E. Bowles; Tricia Martin; Amrita Tailor; Gema Dumitru; Mary M. Mullins; Angela B. Hutchinson; Amy Lansky
Aids and Behavior | 2017
Meredith Noble; Amanda M. Jones; Kristina E. Bowles; Elizabeth DiNenno; Stephen Tregear
Aids and Behavior | 2017
Alexandra B. Balaji; Kristina E. Bowles; Kristen L. Hess; Justin C. Smith; Gabriela Paz-Bailey
Aids and Behavior | 2018
Jennie McKenney; Patrick S. Sullivan; Kristina E. Bowles; Emeka Oraka; Travis Sanchez; Elizabeth DiNenno