Abstract
Renewed enthusiasm for biomedical HIV prevention strategies has followed the recent publication of several high-profile HIV antiretroviral therapy-based HIV prevention trials. In a recent article, Roberts and Matthews (2012) accurately note some of the shortcomings of these individually targeted approaches to HIV prevention and advocate for increased emphasis on structural interventions that have more fundamental effects on the population distribution of HIV. However, they make some implicit assumptions about the extent to which structural interventions are user-independent and more sustainable than biomedical or behavioral interventions. In this article, I elaborate a simple typology of structural interventions along these two axes and suggest that they may be neither user-independent nor sustainable and therefore subject to the same sustainability concerns, costs, and potential unintended consequences as biomedical and behavioral interventions.