Search

Although young Black men who have sex with men (YBMSM) are disproportionately affected by HIV, they may be more heterogeneous as a group than is typically appreciated. Thus, the present study used a person-centered data-analytic approach to determine profiles of HIV-related risk among YBMSM and whether these profiles could be distinguished by age, HIV status, and socioeconomic risk (i.e., socioeconomic distress). YBMSM (N = 1808) aged 18 to 29 years completed a survey of sociodemographic characteristics, HIV status, and HIV-related behavioral and attitudinal factors (i.e., safer-sex self-efficacy, negative condom attitudes, being in difficult sexual situations, being in difficult sexual relationships, HIV treatment optimism, perceived HIV stigma). Latent profile analysis was used to identify HIV risk profiles and whether age, HIV status, and socioeconomic distress were associated with these profiles. Four profiles emerged: low-, medium-, and high-risk profiles, respectively, and a mixed profile characterized by a tendency to be in difficult sexual situations and relationships while also reporting high safer-sex self-efficacy and low negative attitudes toward condom use. Difficult sexual situations emerged as the key defining indicator of whether a profile reflected higher or lower risk. Younger age, being HIV-positive, and socioeconomic distress were associated with having a higher-risk profile. Given that unique risk profiles emerged that were differentially predicted by sociodemographic characteristics and HIV status, these findings have implications for tailoring interventions to the needs of different subgroups of YBMSM. Also, disempowering or risky sexual situations and relationships among YBMSM must be addressed.

Background: Scientific evidence indicates that HIV viral suppression to an undetectable level eliminates sexual transmission risk ("Undetectable=Untransmittable" or "U=U"). However, U=U messaging has been met with skepticism among sexual minority men (SMM) and others. In this survey-based experiment, we manipulated messaging about HIV risk and examined reactions and perceived message accuracy among US SMM. Methods: SMM living with HIV (n = 106) and HIV-negative/ status-unknown SMM (n = 351) participated in an online survey (2019--2020). Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 messaging conditions, which varied by level of HIV sexual transmission risk associated with an undetectable viral load (No Risk [U=U]/Low Risk/Control). Participants reported reactions, message accuracy, and reasons for perceiving inaccuracy. We coded openresponse data (reactions and reasons) into conceptual categories (eg, "Enthusiasm"). We compared reactions, accuracy ratings, and reasons by condition and serostatus. Results: In the No Risk Condition, common reactions were Enthusiasm (40.0%), Skepticism/Disagreement (20.0%), and Agreement (19.4%), reactions common to comparison conditions. A higher percentage of HIV-negative/status-unknown participants (24.1%) expressed Skepticism/Disagreement in the No Risk Condition compared with other conditions (3.2%--9.7%). Participants living with HIV were more likely than HIV-negative/statusunknown participants to perceive the message as accurate in all conditions. In the No Risk Condition, common reasons for perceiving inaccuracy were Risk Misstated (46.1%), Oversimplified/Caveats Needed (17.1%), and Personal Unfamiliarity/Uncertainty (14.5%), reasons common to comparison conditions. Across conditions, 10.3% of participants attributed message inaccuracy to undetectable being misdefined. Conclusion: Most SMM reacted favorably to U=U messaging. However, many--especially HIV-negative/status-unknown SMM-- expressed skepticism. Interventions are needed to enhance U=U understanding and acceptance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The high incidence of HIV among US Black sexual minority men is a public health crisis that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV can help address. Public health campaigns, which often include pictures of Black sexual minority men alongside PrEP-related messaging, have been developed to encourage PrEP awareness and uptake. However, the acceptability of the messaging within these campaigns among Black sexual minority men is unclear. We conducted four focus groups with 18 HIV-negative Black sexual minority men in Washington, DC to explore their perspectives regarding promotional messaging (textual elements) in PrEP visual advertisements, including their reactions to three large-scale public health campaigns. Primary themes included: (1) the need for additional information about PrEP, (2) preference for slogan simplicity, (3) the desire to normalise PrEP use, and (4) mixed views on the inclusion of condoms. Results indicated that the messaging in current PrEP visual advertisements may not sufficiently address Black sexual minority men's questions about PrEP. Providing basic PrEP information and methods to access more information; using simple, unambiguous language; presenting PrEP use in a destigmatising, normalising fashion; and conveying the relevance of condoms if included in the advertisement could help increase the acceptability of future PrEP advertising among Black sexual minority men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrating pregnancy and HIV prevention services would make reproductive health care settings an optimal venue for the promotion and delivery of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to cisgender women. However, these settings have been slow to adopt PrEP. Planned parenthood clinicians and leaders possess critical insight that can help accelerate PrEP implementation in reproductive health care settings and elements of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (i.e., relative priority of the intervention to staff, implementation climate, available resources to implement the intervention, and staff access to knowledge and information about the intervention) can shed light on elements of Planned Parenthood's inner setting that can facilitate PrEP implementation. In this study, individual 60-min interviews were conducted with clinical care team members (n = 10), leadership team members (n = 6), and center managers (n = 2) to explore their perspectives on PrEP implementation and associated training needs. Transcripts were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed. Despite having variable PrEP knowledge, participants (100% women, 61% non-Hispanic White) expressed positive attitudes toward implementing PrEP. Barriers and facilitators toward providing PrEP were reported at the structural, provider, and patient levels. Participants desired PrEP training that incorporated culturally competent patient-provider communication. Although participants identified ways that Planned Parenthood uniquely enabled PrEP implementation, barriers must be overcome to optimize promotion and delivery of PrEP to cisgender women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Addressing women's low uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) requires improved understanding of their product preferences. Such preferences should be contextualized according to other aspects of their reproductive health, including their contraception practices. We investigated women's preferences across 10 PrEP modalities currently available or under study and examined associations between PrEP modality preferences and contraception practices. Heterosexually active women recently engaged in care at Connecticut Planned Parenthood centers (n = 563) completed an online survey. Participants were presented with images and descriptions of 10 PrEP modalities and asked to indicate their preference and specify their reasoning in an open-response format. Participants also reported prior and current use of 16 contraception modalities along with relationship, sexual health, and sociodemographic characteristics. The sample included women ages 18–45 (45.3% 25 or younger) who were predominantly non-Hispanic black (35.7%) or white (33.7%). All PrEP modalities presented were preferred by at least some women, with daily pills (24.9%), injections (24.3%), and invisible implants (14.9%) preferred most commonly. Across all modalities, associated reasoning often centered around ease of use and comfort. Coincidence with contraception modality was the third-most common reason underlying women's preferences. Women currently using the analogous contraception modality versus never having used it had higher odds of preferring PrEP daily pills [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.03], injections (AOR = 8.45), invisible implants (AOR = 11.63), and vaginal rings (AOR = 8.66). Diversification of available PrEP modalities and prioritization of those coinciding with popular contraception practices—especially daily pills, injections, and implants—could optimize PrEP acceptability, encourage PrEP uptake, and ultimately reduce HIV incidence among women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical guidelines for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) developed by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been instrumental in the implementation of PrEP in medical practices throughout the country. However, the eligibility criteria contained within may inadvertently limit PrEP access for some patients. We describe the following key considerations and caveats related to these criteria: promotion of a selective vs universal approach to sexual health education involving PrEP; misalignment between criteria stated in the table and text boxes; problematic categorization and confounding of sexual orientation, gender identity, and risk behavior; underemphasis of network/community-level drivers of HIV transmission; oversimplification of serodiscordant risk; and lack of clarity surrounding the relevance of condoms to PrEP eligibility. We offer concrete recommendations to address the identified issues and strengthen future iterations of the guidelines, applying these recommendations in an alternative table of "criteria." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Background: US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention clinical guidelines for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are widely used to assess patients' PrEP eligibility. The guidelines include 2 versions of criteria—guidance summary criteria and recommended indications criteria—that diverge in a potentially critical way for heterosexually active women: Both require women's knowledge of their own risk behavior, but the recommended indications also require women's knowledge of their partners' HIV risk or recognition of a potentially asymptomatic sexually transmitted infection. This study examined women's PrEP eligibility according to these 2 different versions of criteria across risk and motivation categories. Setting/Methods: HIV-negative women (n = 679) recently engaged in care at Connecticut Planned Parenthood centers were surveyed online in 2017. The survey assessed PrEP eligibility by both versions of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria, HIV risk indicators, PrEP motivation indicators, and sociodemographic characteristics. Results: Participants were mostly non-Hispanic white (33.9%) or black (35.8%) and had low income (<$30,000/year; 58.3%). Overall, 82.3% were eligible for PrEP by guidance summary criteria vs. 1.5% by recommended indications criteria. Women disqualified by recommended indications criteria included those reporting condomless sex with HIV-positive or serostatus-unknown male partners (n = 27, 11.1% eligible); 1 or more recent sexually transmitted infection(s) (n = 53, 3.8% eligible); multiple sex partners (n = 168, 3.0% eligible); intended PrEP use (n = 211, 2.8% eligible); and high self-perceived risk (n = 5, 0.0% eligible). Conclusion: Current guidelines disqualify many women who could benefit from PrEP and may lead to discrepant assessments of eligibility. Guideline reform is needed to improve clarity and increase women's PrEP access and consequent HIV protection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efforts to identify and address social inequities in HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) access are urgently needed. We investigated early-adopting PrEP prescribers' beliefs about how stigma contributes to PrEP access disparities in health care and explored potential intervention strategies within the context of PrEP service delivery. US-based PrEP prescribers were recruited through professional networks and participant referrals. Qualitative interviews were conducted, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Participants (n = 18) were primarily male (72%); white (39%) or Asian (33%); and heterosexual (56%). Most practiced in the Northeastern (67%) or Southern (22%) United States; were physicians (94%); and specialized in HIV/infectious disease (89%). Participants described multiple forms of structural and interpersonal stigma impeding PrEP access. The requirement that PrEP be prescribed was a perceived deterrent for populations with medical mistrust and/or low health literacy. Practice norms such as discussing PrEP only in response to patient requests were seen as favoring more privileged groups. When probed about personally held biases, age-related stereotypes were the most readily acknowledged, including assumptions about older adults being sexually inactive and uncomfortable discussing sex. Participants criticized providers who chose not to prescribe PrEP within their clinical practice, particularly those whose decision reflected personal values related to condomless sex or discomfort communicating about sex with their patients. Suggested solutions included standardizing PrEP service delivery across patients and increasing cultural competence training. These early insights from a select sample of early-adopting providers illuminate mechanisms through which stigma could compromise PrEP access for key populations and corresponding points of intervention within the health care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: Despite healthcare providers’ growing awareness of pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), prescription rates remain low. PrEP is an efficacious HIV prevention strategy recommended for use with condoms but still protective in their absence. Concern about the impact of PrEP on condom use and other risk behaviour is, nonetheless, among the barriers to prescription commonly reported. To understand the implications of this concern for PrEP access, we examined how medical students’ willingness to prescribe PrEP varied by patients’ condom use and partnering practices. We also assessed the perceived acceptability of various reasons for condom discontinuation with PrEP. Methods: An online survey was distributed to 854 medical students in the Northeastern US in 2015. Participants (n = 111) were surveyed about their willingness to prescribe PrEP for each of six male patients who systematically differed in their reported condom use (sustained use, sustained nonuse, or discontinuation with PrEP) and partnering practices (single male partner with untreated HIV or multiple male partners of unknown HIV status). Participants also reported perceived acceptability of four reasons for condom discontinuation: pleasure, sexual functioning, intimacy, and conception. Results: Willingness to prescribe PrEP was inconsistent with patient risk: When the patient used condoms and planned to sustain condom use, most participants were willing to prescribe PrEP – 93% if the patient had a single partner and 86% if the patient had multiple partners. Fewer were willing to prescribe if the patient did not use condoms and planned to sustain nonuse (53% and 45%, respectively) or used condoms but planned to discontinue use (27% and 28%). Significantly fewer participants were willing to prescribe for a patient with multiple partners versus a single partner when the patient reported sustained condom use or sustained condom nonuse. The number of participants who were willing to prescribe was similarly low for a patient with multiple partners versus a single partner when the patient reported that he planned to discontinue condom use. More participants accepted a patient discontinuing condoms for conception (69%) than for intimacy (23%), pleasure (14%), or sexual functioning (13%). Conclusion: Medical students’ clinical judgments were misaligned with patient risk and suggest misconceptions or personal values may undermine provision of optimal HIV prevention services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and evidence that most PrEP users do not engage in risk compensation (i.e., increased risk behavior due to a perceived decrease in HIV susceptibility), some healthcare providers report patient risk compensation to be a deterrent to prescribing PrEP. Overcoming this barrier is essential to supporting PrEP access and uptake among people at risk for HIV. To inform such efforts, this qualitative study explored PrEP-related risk compensation attitudes among providers with firsthand experience prescribing PrEP. US-based PrEP providers ( n = 18), most of whom were HIV specialists, were recruited through direct outreach and referral from colleagues and other participants. Individual 90-min semistructured interviews were conducted by phone or in person from September 2014 through February 2015, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Three attitudinal themes emerged: (1) providers' role is to support patients in making informed decisions, (2) risk behavior while taking PrEP does not fully offset PrEP's protective benefit (i.e., PrEP confers net protection, even with added behavioral risk), and (3) PrEP-related risk compensation is unduly stigmatized within and beyond the healthcare community. Participants were critical of other healthcare providers' negative judgment of patients and reluctance to prescribe PrEP due to anticipated risk compensation. Several providers also acknowledged an evolution in their thinking from initial ambivalence toward greater acceptance of PrEP and PrEP-related behavior change. PrEP providers' insights about risk compensation may help to address unsubstantiated concerns about PrEP-related risk compensation and challenge the acceptability of withholding PrEP on these grounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Optimizing access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an evidence-based HIV prevention resource, requires expanding healthcare providers’ adoption of PrEP into clinical practice. This qualitative study explored PrEP providers’ firsthand experiences relative to six commonly-cited barriers to prescription—financial coverage, implementation logistics, eligibility determination, adherence concerns, side effects, and anticipated behavior change (risk compensation)—as well as their recommendations for training PrEP-inexperienced providers. U.S.-based PrEP providers were recruited via direct outreach and referral from colleagues and other participants (2014–2015). One-on-one interviews were conducted in person or by phone, transcribed, and analyzed. The sample (n = 18) primarily practiced in the Northeastern (67%) or Southern (22%) U.S. Nearly all (94%) were medical doctors (MDs), most of whom self-identified as infectious disease specialists. Prior experience prescribing PrEP ranged from 2 to 325 patients. Overall, providers reported favorable experiences with PrEP implementation and indicated that commonly anticipated problems were minimal or manageable. PrEP was covered via insurance or other programs for most patients; however, pre-authorization requirements, laboratory/service provision costs, and high deductibles sometimes presented challenges. Various models of PrEP care and coordination with other providers were utilized, with several providers highlighting the value of clinical staff support. Eligibility was determined through joint decision-making with patients; CDC guidelines were commonly referenced but not considered absolute. Patient adherence was variable, with particularly strong adherence noted among patients who had actively sought PrEP (self-referred). Providers observed minimal adverse effects or increases in risk behavior. However, they identified several barriers with respect to accessing and engaging PrEP candidates. Providers offered a wide range of suggestions regarding content, strategy, and logistics surrounding PrEP training, highlighting sexual history-taking and sexual minority competence as areas to prioritize. These insights from early-adopting PrEP providers may facilitate adoption of PrEP into clinical practice by PrEP-inexperienced providers, thereby improving access for individuals at risk for HIV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Experiences of stigma are often associated with negative mental and physical health outcomes. The present work tested the associations between stigma and health-related outcomes among people with HIV who inject drugs in Kohtla-Järve, Estonia and St. Petersburg, Russia. These two cities share some of the highest rates of HIV outside of sub-Saharan Africa, largely driven by injection drug use, but Estonia has implemented harm reduction services more comprehensively. People who inject drugs were recruited using respondent-driven sampling; those who indicated being HIV-positive were included in the present sample ( n = 381 in St. Petersburg; n = 288 in Kohtla-Järve). Participants reported their health information and completed measures of internalized HIV stigma, anticipated HIV stigma, internalized drug stigma, and anticipated drug stigma. Participants in both locations indicated similarly high levels of all four forms of stigma. However, stigma variables were more strongly associated with health outcomes in Russia than in Estonia. The St. Petersburg results were consistent with prior work linking stigma and health. Lower barriers to care in Kohtla-Järve may help explain why social stigma was not closely tied to negative health outcomes there. Implications for interventions and health policy are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Introduction: Daily antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a safe and effective method of preventing HIV. Clinicians' assumptions, biases, and judgments may impede access to PrEP. Specifically, concern that patients will engage in more condomless sex ("risk compensation") has been cited by clinicians as a reason for not prescribing PrEP. Methods: In this experimental study among medical students, we systematically varied race (White or Black) and condom-use behaviors (continued-use, planned-discontinuation, or continued-nonuse) of a fictional patient (all men with multiple male sex partners). Participants indicated the patients' assumed adherence to PrEP, patients' overall HIV risk, and willingness to prescribe PrEP. Participants completed an implicit association test to detect implicit racism and measures of heterosexism and attitudes toward nonmonogamy, which were examined as moderators of patient race and condom-use effects on participants' assumptions and ultimate willingness to prescribe PrEP. Results: Participants (N = 600) were most willing to prescribe PrEP to the continued-nonuse patient and least willing to prescribe to the planned-discontinuation patient. No differences were identified based on patient race. The continued-nonuse (vs. continued-use) patient was perceived as less likely to adhere to PrEP, which was associated with lower willingness to prescribe. Negative attitudes toward nonmonogamy exacerbated this effect. No effects of implicit racism or explicit heterosexism were identified. Conclusions: Participants were least willing to prescribe PrEP to patients who planned to discontinue condom use. Patients seeking PrEP are exhibiting agency over their sexual health, and clinicians should fulfill their role in ensuring access to this primary preventative therapy. Training and curricular reform regarding PrEP are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Background: In the United States, women represent less than 5% of all pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users. Social networks may promote and/or inhibit women's PrEP awareness, which could influence PrEP intentions. Furthermore, women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) may have smaller, less supportive networks, which could deter or have no impact on PrEP care engagement. This study examined associations between network characteristics and women's PrEP awareness, interest, uptake, and perceived candidacy and analyzed IPV as an effect modifier. Setting/Methods: From 2017 to 2018, data were collected from a prospective cohort study of 218 PrEP-eligible women with (n = 94) and without (n = 124) IPV experiences in Connecticut. Women completed surveys on demographics, IPV, social networks, and PrEP care continuum outcomes. Results: Adjusted analyses showed that PrEP awareness related to having more PrEP-aware alters. PrEP intentions related to having more alters with favorable opinions of women's potential PrEP use and a smaller network size. Viewing oneself as an appropriate PrEP candidate related to having more PrEP-aware alters and more alters with favorable opinions of women's potential PrEP use. IPV modified associations between network characteristics and PrEP care. Having members who were aware of and/or used PrEP was positively associated with PrEP care engagement for women without IPV experiences but had either no effect or the opposite effect for women experiencing IPV. Conclusion: Improving PrEP attitudes might improve its utilization among women. Social network interventions might be one way to increase PrEP uptake among many US women but may not be as effective for women experiencing IPV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]