Skip to main content
Log in

“We’ve Got Our Own Beliefs, Attitudes, Myths”: A Mixed Methods Assessment of Rural South African Health Care Workers' Knowledge of and Attitudes Towards PrEP Implementation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

South Africa maintains the world’s largest HIV prevalence, accounting for 20.4% of people living with HIV internationally. HIV Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has demonstrated efficacy; however, there is limited data on PrEP implementation in South Africa, particularly in rural areas. Using grounded theory analysis of semi-structured interviews and exploratory factor analyses of structured surveys, this mixed methods study examines healthcare workers’ (HCWs)’ beliefs about their patients and the likelihood of PrEP uptake in their communities. The disproportionate burden of HIV among Black South Africans is linked to the legacy of apartheid and resulting disparities in wealth and employment. HCWs in our study emphasized the importance of addressing these structural barriers, including increased travel burden among men in the community looking for work, poor transportation infrastructure, and limited numbers of highly skilled clinical staff in their rural community. HCWs also espoused a vision of PrEP that prioritizes women due to perceived constraints on their sexual agency, and that minimizes the impact of HIV-related stigma on PrEP implementation. However, HCWs' additional concerns for risk compensation may reflect dominant social mores around sexual behavior. In recognition of HCWs’ role as both informants and community members, implementation scientists should invite local HCWs to partner as early as the priority-setting stage for PrEP interventions. Inviting leadership from local HCWs may increase the likelihood of delivery plans that account for unique local context and structural barriers researchers may otherwise struggle to uncover.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

We have included the survey instrument as an appendix.

References

  1. UNAIDS. South Africa: HIV and AIDS estimates. 2018. https://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/southafrica. Accessed 17 Nov 2020.

  2. UNAIDS. Ending AIDS: Progress towards 90–90–90 Targets. 2017. https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2017/20170720_Global_AIDS_update_2017. Accessed Nov 2019.

  3. PrEP watch South Africa PrEP enrollment estimates. Published 2019. https://www.prepwatch.org/country/south-africa/. Accessed 21 Dec 2020.

  4. McCormick AW, Abuelezam NN, Rhode ER, et al. Development, calibration and performance of an HIV transmission model incorporating natural history and behavioral patterns: application in South Africa. PLoS ONE. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098272.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Shuper PA, Kiene SM, Mahlase G, et al. HIV transmission risk behavior among HIV-positive patients receiving antiretroviral therapy in Kwazulu-Natal South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(8):1532–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-013-0647-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hanson S, Zembe Y, Ekström AM. Vital need to engage the community in HIV control in South Africa. Glob Health Act. 2015. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v8.27450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jemmott JB, Jemmott LS, O’Leary A, et al. Cluster-randomized controlled trial of an HIV/sexually transmitted infection risk-reduction intervention for South African men. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(3):467–73. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301578.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Mugo NR, Ngure K, Kiragu M, Irungu E, Kilonzo N. The preexposure prophylaxis revolution; from clinical trials to programmatic implementation. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2016;11(1):80–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/COH.0000000000000224.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bepouka BI, Situakibanza H, Kokusa Y, Nkodila A, Kizunga F, Kiazayawoko F. Care providers’ knowledge and willingness to prescribe pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Pan Afr Med J. 2019;34:166.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kambutse I, Igiraneza G, Shenoi SV, Ogbuagu O. Perceptions of HIV transmission and preexposure prophylaxis among health care workers and community members in Rwanda. PLoS ONE. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207650.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Calabrese SK, Tekeste M, Mayer KH, et al. Considering stigma in the provision of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: reflections from current prescribers. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2019;33(2):79–88. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2018.0166.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Unni EJ, Lian N, Kuykendall W. Understanding community pharmacist perceptions and knowledge about HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) therapy in a Mountain West state. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2016;56(5):527-532.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2016.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mack N, Wong C, McKenna K, Lemons A, Odhiambo J, Agot K. Human resource challenges to integrating HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) into the public health system in Kenya: a qualitative study. Afr J Reprod Health. 2015;19(1):54–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Van Der Elst EM, Gichuru E, Muraguri N, et al. Strengthening healthcare providers’ skills to improve HIV services for MSM in Kenya. AIDS. 2015;29(Suppl 3):S237–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000000882.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ngure K, Kimemia G, Dew K, et al. Delivering safer conception services to HIV serodiscordant couples in Kenya: perspectives from healthcare providers and HIV serodiscordant couples. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017;20(Suppl 1):52–8. https://doi.org/10.7448/IAS.20.2.21309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6 PART2):2134–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Human Sciences Research Council: South Africa. The Fifth South African National HIV Prevlanece, Incidence, Behaviour, and Communication Survey, 2018 (SASBSSM V1). 2018. http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/departments/hsc/National_HIV_Survey. Accessed May 2020.

  18. Lehohla P. Census 2011 Municipal Report KwaZulu-Natal. 2011. http://www.statssa.gov.za/census/census_2011/census_products/KZN_Municipal_Report.pdf. Accessed May 2020.

  19. Guetterman TC, Fetters MD, Creswell JW. Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Ann Fam Med. 2015;13(6):554–61. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1865.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Jacobson KB, Niccolai L, Mtungwa N, Moll AP, Shenoi SV. “It’s about my life”: facilitators of and barriers to isoniazid preventive therapy completion among people living with HIV in rural South Africa. AIDS Care - Psychological and Socio-Medical Aspects of AIDS/HIV. 2017;29(7):936–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2017.1283390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Puro V, Palummieri A, De Carli G, Piselli P, Ippolito G. Attitude towards antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescription among HIV specialists. BMC Infect Dis. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-13-217.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Charmaz K. The power and potential of grounded theory. Medical Sociology. 2012;6:2–15.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Strauss A. Grounded theory methodology: an overview. Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. London: Sage; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(4):1758–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00684.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(1):80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bartlett MS. Tests of significance in factor analysis. Br J Stat Psychol. 1950;3(2):77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yeomans KA, Golder PA. The Guttman-Kaiser criterion as a predictor of the number of common factors. Statistician. 1982;31:221–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965;30(2):179–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Glorfeld LW. An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educ Psychol Meas. 1995;55(3):377–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res. 1966;1(2):245–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. SEM: confirmatory factor analysis. Multivar Data Anal. 2006;6:770–842.

    Google Scholar 

  33. McDonald RP, Burr EJ. A comparison of four methods of constructing factor scores. Psychometrika. 1967;32(4):381–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Auerbach JD, Parkhurst JO, Cáceres CF. Addressing social drivers of HIV/AIDS for the long-term response: conceptual and methodological considerations. Glob Public Health. 2011;6(SUPPL. 3):293–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2011.594451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rojas Castro D, Delabre RM, Molina J. Give PrEP a chance: moving on from the “risk compensation” concept. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25351.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Belanger CF, Hennekens CH, Rosner B, Speizer FE. The nurses’ health study. Am J Nurs. 1978;78(6):1039–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Habedi D. Healthcare workers’ perspectives on availability and accessibility of the prevention of mother-to-child-transmission programme in North West province, South Africa. Afr J AIDS Res. 2020;19(1):24–33. https://doi.org/10.2989/16085906.2019.1676803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Sullivan PS, Siegler AJ. Getting pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to the people: opportunities, challenges and emerging models of PrEP implementation. Sex Health. 2018;15(6):522–7. https://doi.org/10.1071/SH18103.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. O’Malley G, Barnabee G, Mugwanya K. Scaling-up PrEP delivery in sub-Saharan Africa: what can we learn from the scale-up of art? Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2019;16(2):141–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-019-00437-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Gombe MM, Cakouros BE, Ncube G, et al. Key barriers and enablers associated with uptake and continuation of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the public sector in Zimbabwe: qualitative perspectives of general population clients at high risk for HIV. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(1):e0227632. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227632.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Mayer CM, Owaraganise A, Kabami J, et al. Distance to clinic is a barrier to Pr <scp>EP</scp> uptake and visit attendance in a community in rural Uganda. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22(4):e25276. https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25276.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. King EJ, Maman S, Bowling JM, Moracco KE, Dudina V. The influence of stigma and discrimination on female sex workers’ access to hiv services in St. Petersburg Russia. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(8):2597–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-013-0447-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Smith MK, Xu RH, Hunt SL, et al. Combating HIV stigma in low- and middle-income healthcare settings: a scoping review. J Int AIDS Soc. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25553.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Oosthuizen M. Inequality and the generational economy: Race-disaggregated National Transfer Accounts for South Africa, 2015. 2019. WIDER Working Paper. 2019. https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/2019/658-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Burger R, Jafta R. Returns to race: labour market discrimination in post-apartheid South Africa. https://resep.sun.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/wp-04-2006.pdf. Accessed 21 Dec 2020.

  46. Gradín C. Occupational segregation by race in South Africa after apartheid. Rev Dev Econ. 2019;23(2):553–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/rode.12551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bailey ZD, Krieger N, Agénor M, Graves J, Linos N, Bassett MT. Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. Lancet. 2017;389(10077):1453–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30569-X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Asabor EN, Vermund SH. Confronting structural racism in the prevention and control of tuberculosis in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1763.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Mabaso M, Makola L, Naidoo I, Mlangeni LL, Jooste S, Simbayi L. HIV prevalence in South Africa through gender and racial lenses: results from the 2012 population-based national household survey. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):167. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-019-1055-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Doshi RK, Bowleg L, Blankenship KM. Tying structural racism to HIV viral suppression. Clin Infect Dis. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1252.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Hardeman RR, Karbeah J. Examining racism in health services research: a disciplinary self-critique. Health Serv Res. 2020;55(S2):777–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13558.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Phillip Smith (Yale University, Department of Sociology) and Jaya Aysola (University of Pennsylvania, Division of General Internal Medicine) for their thoughtful comments on the manuscript. We also thank Sister Lindiwe Sithole for her invaluable support on-the-ground. Finally, we would like to thank the Black Health Scholars Network for their support of this work.

Funding

SVS is supported by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (#2015216) and the Irene Diamond Foundation (#2006078).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

ENA: Conceptualized the study, wrote interview guide and adapted survey instrument, conducted interviews and qualitative analysis, interpreted results, and drafted original manuscript. EL: Conducted statistical analysis, interpreted results, and co-wrote manuscript draft. AM: Conceptualized the study and critically revised the manuscript. SVS: Conceptualized the study, provided preliminary version of survey instrument, and critically revised the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuella Ngozi Asabor.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. SVS’s spouse performed part-time contract work for Amgen Pharmaceuticals October 2015-October 2018. There is no conflict of interest regarding this manuscript but it is included for full disclosure.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by institutional review boards at the South African Medical Association (SAMA) in Pretoria, South Africa and the Human Investigations Committee at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut.

Informed Consent

Survey: In order to improve our services, we are conducting a survey to understand how healthcare workers feel about medications to prevent HIV and what they think their patients know about HIV. Would you be willing to answer a brief questionnaire about your opinions of community member HIV knowledge and HIV prevention? Neither your name nor any other information collected will identify you.

Interview: I would like to ask you a few open-ended questions about PrEP. Would you be willing to speak with me? I will not use your name when we speak during the recording to make sure that our conversation is anonymous. Are you ok with me recording the interview to make sure that I capture everything that you are saying?

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix

Appendix 1: PrEP Attitudes, Knowledge, and Engagement (PAKE) Survey

*Assessment of Preexisting Knowledge and Attitudes Concerning PrEP

1. Have you ever heard of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)?

Y

N

U

2. How much would you say you know about HIV PrEP?

Nothing

A little

Some

A lot

A great deal

3. How often do you talk to your patients about HIV?

Every visit

More than half the time

Less than half the time

Never

Declined to Answer

Ask: “Do you agree with any of these statements?”

4

PrEP reduces someone’s risk of getting HIV

Y

N

U

5

PrEP is a medicine that needs to be taken everyday

Y

N

U

6

If someone takes PrEP, they will not get sick with HIV

Y

N

U

7

If someone takes PrEP, their partner do(es) not need to use a condom

Y

N

U

8

PrEP can decrease HIV infection in my communityǂ

Y

N

U

9

PrEP could harm current efforts to prevent/address HIVǂ

Y

N

U

10

I am interested in learning about new methods to prevent HIV

Y

N

U

11

I have the proper knowledge/training to advocate for my community to use PrEP

Y

N

U


Part Two


Following a brief presentation on PrEP


The next questions ask how you feel about patients taking medicine to prevent HIV.


*PrEP stigma: Ask: Do you agree with the following statements?

12

If a patient was taking PrEP, others would think less of that patient

Y

N

U

13

If a patient was taking PrEP, others would avoid that patient

Y

N

U

14

If a patient was taking PrEP, that patient would feel comfortable telling a close friend

Y

N

U

15

If a patient was taking PrEP, the patient would think less of oneself

Y

N

U

16

If a patient was taking PrEP, others will think that patient has HIV

Y

N

U

17

My patients would feel comfortable telling others that they are taking PrEP

Y

N

U


*Attitudes towards PrEP: Read the following, tick Y, N, or U. 2

18

I am concerned that PrEP would not protect patients 100%

Y

N

U

19

I am concerned about the potential side effects of PrEP for my patients

Y

N

U

20

I think patients will be interested in PrEP

Y

N

U

21

I think patients would take the PrEP medication every day

Y

N

U

22

I think patients would come to the clinic monthly to get PrEP

Y

N

U

23

I am concerned that patients will not use condoms if they take PrEP

Y

N

U

24

I am concerned that patients will have more sexual partners if they take PrEP

Y

N

U

25

I am concerned that patients using PrEP will no longer get tested for HIV

Y

N

U

26

I am concerned that taking PrEP continuously would be too expensive for patients

Y

N

U

27

I am concerned that using PrEP would cause HIV drug resistance

Y

N

U


Interest in working with PrEP: Read the following, tick Y, N, or U 2.

28

I would not recommend PrEP if it is not 100% effective*

Y

N

U

29

I have time to counsel patients about ways to decrease HIV risk

Y

N

U

30

I have time to counsel patients about PrEP

Y

N

U

31

I have the training I need to counsel patients about ways to decrease HIV risk

Y

N

U

32

I have the training I need to counsel patients about PrEP

Y

N

U

33

I believe HIV testing and treating HIV patients are more important than PrEPǂ

Y

N

U

34

I believe promoting safe sex practices will work better than PrEP to decrease risk of HIV infectionsǂ

Y

N

U

35

If available, I would recommend PrEP to my patients right nowǂ

Y

N

U

36

Should professional nurses prescribe and monitor patients on PrEP?

Y

N

U

37

Should PrEP be available to patients at primary care clinics?

Y

N

U

  1. *Item 28 was excluded from the analysis because it was unclear to survey respondents
  2. ǂIndicates items that were used as outcomes in regression analyses

Appendix 2

See Table 5.

Table 5 Factor Loadings
figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Asabor, E.N., Lett, E., Moll, A. et al. “We’ve Got Our Own Beliefs, Attitudes, Myths”: A Mixed Methods Assessment of Rural South African Health Care Workers' Knowledge of and Attitudes Towards PrEP Implementation. AIDS Behav 25, 2517–2532 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-021-03213-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-021-03213-z

Keywords

Navigation