[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.205.176.107. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
June 24, 1988

Contact Tracing to Identify Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection in a Rural Community

Author Affiliations

From the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Greenwood (Drs Wykoff, Heath, Jones, and Parker, Mss Hollis and Leonard, and Mr Quiller); and the Department of Mathematical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC (Dr Artzrouni). Dr Jones is the Epidemic Intelligence Service officer assigned to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Division of Field Services, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta.

From the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Greenwood (Drs Wykoff, Heath, Jones, and Parker, Mss Hollis and Leonard, and Mr Quiller); and the Department of Mathematical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC (Dr Artzrouni). Dr Jones is the Epidemic Intelligence Service officer assigned to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Division of Field Services, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta.

JAMA. 1988;259(24):3563-3566. doi:10.1001/jama.1988.03720240025029
Abstract

This report describes a contact investigation conducted in rural South Carolina to identify, counsel, and educate persons infected with or exposed to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Starting with one HIV antibody—positive man and his 19 sex contacts, we identified 83 sex contacts of HIV antibody—positive men. Of these, 64 were residents of the county and 63 (98%) agreed to be tested for evidence of HIV infection. Eight (13%) were HIV antibody positive. Thirty-six initially HIV antibody—negative men were reevaluated at a six-month follow-up visit, and three had seroconverted during this time. Of 25 men who reported practicing anal receptive intercourse, 13 (52%) were HIV antibody positive vs none of 43 men who reported strictly anal insertive intercourse. Comparing reported numbers of sexual contacts for the six-month periods before and after our initial investigation, the mean numbers of named sex contacts decreased by 82% for antibody-positive men and 54% for antibody-negative men. None of the men reported using condoms before entering the study; at the six-month follow-up visit, four (80%) of five of the antibody-positive men and 25 (69%) of 36 of the antibody-negative men reported using condoms at least some of the time.

(JAMA 1988;259:3563-3566)

×