AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1229–1235 | Cite as

Demographic Differences in PrEP-Related Stereotypes: Implications for Implementation

  • Sarit. A. GolubEmail author
  • Kristi E. Gamarel
  • Anthony Surace
Brief Report


Qualitative interviews about pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) stereotypes were conducted with a subsample of 160 MSM who participated in a PrEP messaging study. Negative stereotypes about PrEP users were identified by 80 % of participants. Two types of stereotypes were most common: PrEP users are HIV-infected (and lying about it), and PrEP users are promiscuous and resistant to condom use. Participants’ identification of these stereotype categories differed significantly by demographic factors (i.e., race/ethnicity, education). Expanding access to PrEP requires recognizing potential differences in the experience or anticipation of PrEP-related stereotypes that might impact willingness to discuss PrEP with providers, friends, or partners.


Pre-exposure prophylaxis Stereotypes MSM HIV prevention 



Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health under award number R01MH095565 (S.A. Golub, PI). Kristi Gamarel was also supported by the National Institute of Mental Health training grant number T32MH 078788 (L. Brown, PI). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors gratefully acknowledge the hard work of Kailip Boonrai, Inna Saboshchuk, and Dr. Corina Lelutiu-Weinberger. We also thank Dr. Jeffrey Parsons and the staff at the Center for HIV Educational Studies and Training. We are grateful to the participants who gave their time and energy to this study and to Dr. Michael Stirratt and Dr. Willo Pequegnat for their support.


  1. 1.
    Zablotska IB, Prestage G, de Wit J, Grulich AE, Mao L, Holt M. The informal use of antiretrovirals for preexposure prophylaxis of HIV infection among gay men in Australia. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;62:334–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krakower DS, Mimiaga MJ, Rosenberger JG, et al. Limited awareness and low immediate uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men using an internet social networking site. PLoS One. 2012;7:e33119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grant RM, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu A, et al. Uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis, sexual practices, and HIV incidence in men and transgender women who have sex with men: a cohort study. Lancet. 2014;14:820–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ayala G, Majofane K, Santos GM, et al. Access to basic HIV-related services and PrEP acceptability among men who have sex with men worldwide: barriers, facilitators, and implications for combination preventions. J Sex Transm Dis. 2013;2013:11.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu A, Cohen S, Follansbee S, et al. Early experiences implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV infection in San Francisco. PLoS One. 2014;11(3):e1001613.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Minnis AM, Gandham S, Richardson BA, et al. Adherence and acceptability in MTN 001: a randomized cross-over trial of daily oral and topical tenofovir for HIV prevention in women. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(2):737–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tangmunkongvorakul A, Chariyalertsak S, Amico KR, et al. Facilitators and barriers to medication adherence in an HIV prevention study among men who have sex with men in the iPrEx study in Chiang Mai, Thailand. AIDS Care. 2012;25(8):961–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grant RM. Antiretroviral agents used by HIV-uninfected persons for prevention: pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50:S96–101.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Golub SA, Kowalczyk W, Lelutiu-Weinberger C, Parsons JT. Prexposure prophylaxis and predicted condom use among high-risk men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;54(4):548–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Srivastava A, Thompson SB. Framework analysis: a qualitative methodology for applied policy research. J Adm Gov. 2009;42(2):72–9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duran D. Truvada whores? 2012. Accessed 10 Feb 2014.
  12. 12.
    Paulhus DL. Two-component models of socially desirable responding. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1984;46:598–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Golub SA, Gamarel KE. The impact of anticipated HIV stigma on delays in HIV testing behaviors: findings from a community-based sample of men who have sex with men and transgender women in New York City. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2013;27(11):621–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Earnshaw VA, Smith LR, Chaudoir SR, Lee IC, Copenhaver MM. Stereotypes about people living with HIV: implications for perceptions of HIV risk and testing frequency among at-risk populations. AIDS Educ Prev. 2012;24:574–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dovidio JF, Kawakami K, Gaertner SL. Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;82(1):62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarit. A. Golub
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kristi E. Gamarel
    • 2
    • 3
  • Anthony Surace
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyHunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY)New YorkUSA
  2. 2.Hunter HIV/AIDS Research Team (HART)Hunter College of the City of New York (CUNY)New YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychiatry and Human BehaviorAlpert Medical School of Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations