HIV/AIDS, Severe Mental Illness and Homelessness

Primary Outcome Measures:

• Frequency of Risk Taking Behavior [ Time Frame: One year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  Mean Changes from baseline to follow-ups at 6 and 12 months for constructs of the IMB (Information Motivation Behavior) Model will be larger for participants randomized to the SB-MI condition compared to CAU.
  
  

Secondary Outcome Measures:

• HIV Counseling & Testing [ Time Frame: One year ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  Participants in SB-MI will demonstrate higher rates of accessing HIV counseling and testing at 6 month follow-up, as compared to participants in CAU.
  
  

Our long-term objective is to reduce the incidence of HIV risk behavior for SMI by developing an intervention that can be easily translated and adapted to "real world" settings. Our proposed project is designed to augment previously-developed research on HIV risk reduction interventions for SMI. The innovations the investigators have developed include: 1) SB-MI intervention design that can be utilized with diverse participants with SM in contrast to other research which has focused on either primary or secondary prevention with a fairly discrete population, such as women of color, patients in a drug recovery program etc. The investigators will examine treatment response as a function of diverse participant characteristics; 2) SB-MI intervention is delivered in an individual format to provides a flexible structure for tailoring strategies and techniques for each participant's complex cognitive and psychosexual functioning, as well as his/her needs and values in contrast to research on HIV prevention in SMI which generally occurs in group and does not allow for individualized tailoring. In addition, our experience with group interventions is they do not easily allow for discussions of risk related to complex sexual and physical abuse histories, sex trading and other stigmatized activities characteristic of SMI. Our individualized approach affords maximum flexibility and privacy in selecting topics of intervention, which the investigators also believe to be essential to the spirit of Motivational Interviewing; 3) Previous interventions have typically been either very brief (e.g. one half-hour session) or time-intensive. In contrast, our intervention (3 sessions + 1 or 2 Booster(s)) is long enough to allow participants to form a working alliance with providers, but not so lengthy as to be burdensome or non-translatable for the real-world settings in which patients routinely seek care such as urban safety net Medical Center's; 4) a review of the literature suggests that many health behavior changes fade within a fairly short period of time; our inclusion of booster session and a sub-study examining the effect of a 2nd booster after the 6 month follow-up is a novel way of strengthening the effects of our intervention. The investigators will also be extending our follow-up period to 12 months, to allow us to further assess long-term change; and 5) No study to date has examined HIV counseling and testing as an outcome for this population (Senn & Carey, 2009). The investigators believe this represents a significant deficit in attending to the needs of SMI, given that testing and access to life-extending treatment should be an essential component to prevention interventions for SMI. Both our SB-MI and CAU conditions will include referrals for HIV testing where indicated, although the SB-MI intervention systematically supports motivation for participants seeking HIV counseling and testing services, whereas CAU provides information and general support for testing. The investigators hope to see that the attention paid to this issue in SB-MI yields greater access to HIV testing services.