Search

There is growing evidence that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prevents HIV acquisition. However, in the United States, approximately only 4% of people who could benefit from PrEP are currently receiving it, and it is estimated only 1 in 5 physicians has ever prescribed PrEP. We conducted a scoping review to gain an understanding of physician-identified barriers to PrEP provision. Four overarching barriers presented in the literature: Purview Paradox, Patient Financial Constraints, Risk Compensation, and Concern for ART Resistance. Considering the physician-identified barriers, we make recommendations for how physicians and students may work to increase PrEP knowledge and competence along each stage of the PrEP cascade. We recommend adopting HIV risk assessment as a standard of care, improving physician ability to identify PrEP candidates, improving physician interest and ability in encouraging PrEP uptake, and increasing utilization of continuous care management to ensure retention and adherence to PrEP.

Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) has been shown to be an effective method of HIV prevention for men who have sex with-men (MSM) and -transgender women (MSTGWs), serodiscordant couples, and injection drug users; however fewer than 50 000 individuals currently take this regimen. Knowledge of PrEP is low among healthcare providers and much of this lack of knowledge stems from the lack or exposure to PrEP in medical school. We conducted a cross sectional survey of medical schools in the United States to assess the degree to which PrEP for HIV prevention is taught. The survey consisted Likert scale questions assessing how well the students were prepared to perform each skill associated with PrEP delivery, as well as how PrEP education was delivered to students. We contacted 141 medical schools and 71 responded to the survey (50.4%). PrEP education was only reported to be offered at 38% of schools, and only 15.4% reported specific training for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) patients. The most common delivery methods of PrEP content were didactic sessions with 11 schools reporting this method followed by problem-based learning, direct patient contact, workshops, and small group discussions. Students were more prepared to provide PrEP to MSM compared to other high-risk patients. Few medical schools are preparing their students to prescribe PrEP upon graduation. Further, there is a need to increase the number of direct patient contacts or simulations for students to be better prepared.

Objectives: We sought to increase the accuracy of New York City's estimates of its unsheltered homeless population., Methods: We employed 2 approaches to increasing count accuracy: a plant-capture strategy in which embedded decoys (or "plants") were used to estimate the proportion of visible homeless people missed by enumerators and a postcount survey of service users designed to estimate the proportion of unsheltered homeless people who were not visible., Results: Plants at 17 sites (29%) reported being missed in the count, because counters either did not visit those sites or did not interview the plants. Of 293 homeless service users who were not in shelters, 31% to 41% were in locations deemed not visible to counters., Conclusions: Both plant-capture estimation and postcount surveys are feasible approaches that can increase the accuracy of estimates of unsheltered homeless populations.

This commentary draws on personal experience with interdisciplinary collaborations to suggest that Maton, Perkins, and Saegert (this issue) may overstate the challenges internal to interdisciplinary work groups. It supports their discussion of external challenges, and comments on the efforts they suggest to further interdisciplinary work.

The model of prevention science advocated by the Institute of Medicine (P. J. Mrazek & R. J. Haggerty, 1994) has not lead to widespread adoption of prevention and promotion programs for four reasons. The model of dissemination of programs to communities fails to consider community and organizational capacity to implement programs, ignores the need for congruence in values between programs and host sites, displays a pro-innovation bias that undervalues indigenous practices, and assumes a simplistic model of how community organizations adopt innovations. To address these faults, researchers should locate, study, and help disseminate successful indigenous programs that fit community capacity and values. In addition, they should build on theoretical models of how locally developed programs work to make existing programs and polices more effective.

This article reviews and critiques community-based research on the effects of homelessness on children. Homeless children confront serious threats to their ability to succeed and their future well-being. Of particular concern are health problems, hunger, poor nutrition, developmental delays, anxiety, depression, behavioral problems, and educational underachievement. Factors that may mediate the observed outcomes include inadequate shelter conditions, instability in residences and shelters, inadequate services, and barriers to accessing services that are available. Public policy initiatives are needed to meet the needs of homeless children.

Community psychology's twin goals of prevention and empowerment are ill-served when researchers and practitioners restrict their activities to traditional mental health settings. This paper echoes the call of the Swampscott conference for expanding community psychology's domain of inquiry and action. It reviews examples from the research literature of efforts at prevention and empowerment in five classes of behavior settings identified by Barker (1968), namely, schools, work sites, religious settings, voluntary associations, and government, and suggests additional roles community psychologists might play.