Social capital and HIV/AIDS in the United States: Knowledge, gaps, and future directions

Purpose: Social capital is a well-established predictor of several behavioral health outcomes. However, we know less about the relationship with prevention, transmission, and treatment of HIV/AIDS outcomes in the United States (US). Methods: social capital OR social control, informal OR social participation OR social cohesion OR generalized trust OR social trust OR collective efficacy OR community mob* OR civic participation. Results: We identified 1581 unique manuscripts and reviewed 13 based on eligibility criteria. The earliest eligible study was published in 2003. More than half (n=7/13) focused on HIV or AIDS diagnosis, then prescribing ART and/or adherence (n=5/13), then linkage and or engagement in HIV care (n=4/13). Fifty eight percent (58%) documented a protective association between at least one social capital measure and an HIV/AIDS outcome. Seven studies used validated social capital scales, however there was substantial variation in conceptual/operational definitions and measures used. Most studies were based on samples from the Northeast. Three studies directly focused on or stratified analyses among subgroups or key populations. Studies were cross-sectional, so causal inference is unknown. Conclusion: Our review suggests that social capital may be an important determinant of HIV/AIDS prevention, transmission, and treatment outcomes. We recommend future research assess these associations using qualitative and mixed-methods approaches, longitudinally, examine differences across subgroups and geographic region, include a wider range of social capital constructs, and examine indicators beyond HIV diagnosis, as well as how mechanisms like stigma link social capital to HIV/AIDS.