Advertisement

Promoting ‘Equitable Access’ to PrEP in Australia: Taking Account of Stakeholder Perspectives

  • Christy Newman
  • Shana Hughes
  • Asha Persson
  • Hong-Ha M. Truong
  • Martin Holt
Original Paper

Abstract

As evidence of the safety and effectiveness of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has grown, so has attention to the views of prospective users and providers. However, far less attention has been paid to understanding the perspectives of other stakeholders in the rollout of PrEP access programs. We conducted 21 semi-structured qualitative interviews in 2017 with key stakeholders working across the policy, advocacy, research and/or clinical dimensions of the Australian HIV response, before federal support for a subsidised access scheme was achieved. Our analysis explored three areas of shared concern: who is a suitable candidate for PrEP; why are disparities in PrEP access important; and how can disparities be addressed? In examining how this diverse group of professionals grappled with the challenges of promoting ‘equitable access’ to PrEP in an increasingly resource rationed health system, we can see how the principles believed to underpin the Australian response to HIV were both reaffirmed and challenged through this period of significant change.

Keywords

HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) Equity Access Qualitative research Australia 

Resumen

Últimamente, viene acumulando evidencia para la seguridad y eficacia de la profilaxis pre-exposición al VIH (PrEP, siglas en inglés). Junto con esto, también se ha aumentado atención a las opiniones de los posibles usuarios y proveedores. Sin embargo, todavía sabemos muy poco sobre las perspectivas de otras personas interesadas, aunque tal vez menos directamente involucradas, en el despliegue de los programas de acceso a PrEP. En 2017, llevamos a cabo 21 entrevistas cualitativas semiestructuradas con “informantes claves” de la respuesta australiana al VIH, o sea, gente que trabaja en las dimensiones políticas, de abogacia, investigación y/o clínicas de la epidemia en el país. Las entrevistas fueron hechas antes de que se lograra el apoyo federal para un esquema de acceso subsidiado. Nuestro análisis exploró tres áreas de preocupación compartida: ¿Quién es un candidato apropiado para PrEP? ¿Por qué son importantes las disparidades en el acceso a PrEP? y ¿Cómo se puede abordar estas disparidades? Examinamos en particular la manera en que este grupo diverso de profesionales lidió con los desafíos de promover el “acceso equitativo” a PrEP, en un sistema de salud cada vez más racionado. Por esa óptica queda claro que, en este período de transformación significativa, los principios vistos como bases fundamentales de la respuesta australiana al VIH fueron tanto reafirmados como desafiados.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to all of our participants who made room in their very busy working lives to speak with us about this topic.

Funding

This work was supported by the Centre for Social Research in Health, which receives funding from the Australian Government Department of Health and UNSW Arts and Social Sciences. Small grants were provided by Arts and Social Sciences at UNSW Sydney to support the development of a collaboration with our colleagues at UCSF CAPS, including a Faculty Collaborative Research Scheme Grant.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu AY, Vargas L, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2587–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fonner VA, Dalglish SL, Kennedy CE, Baggaley R, O’Reilly KR, Koechlin FM, et al. Effectiveness and safety of oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis for all populations. AIDS. 2016;30(12):1973–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greene GJ, Swann G, Fought AJ, Carballo-Diéguez A, Hope TJ, Kiser PF, et al. Preferences for long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), daily oral PrEP, or condoms for HIV prevention among U.S. men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1336–49.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Newman CE, Mao L, Persson A, Holt M, Slavin S, Kidd MR, et al. ‘Not until I’m absolutely half-dead and have to:’ accounting for non-use of antiretroviral therapy in semi-structured interviews with people living with HIV in Australia. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2015;29(5):267–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holt M. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment as prevention: a review of awareness and acceptability among men who have sex with men in the Asia-Pacific region and the Americas. Sex Health. 2014;11(2):166–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Young I, Flowers P, McDaid LM. Barriers to uptake and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among communities most affected by HIV in the UK: findings from a qualitative study in Scotland. BMJ Open. 2014;4(11):e005717.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caceres CF, O’Reilly KR, Mayer KH, Baggaley R. PrEP implementation: moving from trials to policy and practice. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18(4 Suppl 3):20222.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Holt M, Lea T, Schmidt H-M, Kolstee J, Ellard J, Murphy D, et al. Willingness to use and have sex with men taking HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): results of online surveys of Australian gay and bisexual men, 2011–2015. Sex Transm Infect. 2017;93(6):438–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee E, Mao L, Lea T, McKenzie T, Batrouney C, Allan B, et al. Gay community periodic survey: Melbourne 2017. Sydney: Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW Australia; 2017.  https://doi.org/10.4225/53/597145d722292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hull P, Mao L, Lea T, Lee E, Kolstee J, Duck T, et al. Gay community periodic survey: Sydney 2017. Sydney: Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW Australia; 2017.  https://doi.org/10.4225/53/59598c5643b4d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zablotska IB, Selvey C, Guy R, Price K, Holden J, Schmidt H-M, et al. Expanded HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation in communities in New South Wales, Australia (EPIC-NSW): design of an open label, single arm implementation trial. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):210.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lal L, Audsley J, Murphy DA, Fairley CK, Stoove M, Roth N, et al. Medication adherence, condom use and sexually transmitted infections in Australian preexposure prophylaxis users. AIDS. 2017;31(12):1709–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ryan KE, Mak A, Stoove M, Price B, Fairley CK, Ruth S, et al. Protocol for an HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) population level intervention study in Victoria Australia: the PrEPX study. Front Public Health. 2018;6:151.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wright E, Grulich A, Roy K, Boyd M, Cornelisse V, Russell D, et al. Australasian society for HIV, viral hepatitis and sexual health medicine HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: clinical guidelines. J Virus Erad. 2017;3(3):168–84.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holt M. Progress and challenges in ending HIV and AIDS in Australia. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(2):331–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Auerbach JD, Hoppe TA. Beyond “getting drugs into bodies”: social science perspectives on pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18(4 Suppl 3):19983.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Caceres CF, Koechlin F, Goicochea P, Sow PS, O’Reilly KR, Mayer KH, et al. The promises and challenges of pre-exposure prophylaxis as part of the emerging paradigm of combination HIV prevention. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18(4 Suppl 3):19949.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Petroll AE, Walsh JL, Owczarzak JL, McAuliffe TL, Bogart LM, Kelly JA. PrEP awareness, familiarity, comfort, and prescribing experience among US primary care providers and HIV specialists. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1256–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Adams LM, Balderson BH. HIV providers’ likelihood to prescribe pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention differs by patient type: a short report. AIDS Care. 2016;28(9):1154–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Calabrese SK, Magnus M, Mayer KH, Krakower DS, Eldahan AI, Gaston Hawkins LA, et al. Putting PrEP into practice: Lessons learned from early-adopting U.S. providers’ firsthand experiences providing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and associated care. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(6):e0157324.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wheelock A, Eisingerich AB, Gomez GB, Gray E, Dybul MR, Piot P. Views of policymakers, healthcare workers and NGOs on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): a multinational qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(4):e001234.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mack N, Odhiambo J, Wong CM, Agot K. Barriers and facilitators to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) eligibility screening and ongoing HIV testing among target populations in Bondo and Rarieda, Kenya: results of a consultation with community stakeholders. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rosengarten M, Michael M. The performative function of expectations in translating treatment to prevention: the case of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(7):1049–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in qualitative psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bryman A. Social research methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holt M. Configuring the users of new HIV-prevention technologies: the case of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. Cult Health Sex. 2015;17(4):428–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lea T, Murphy D, Rosengarten M, Kippax S, de Wit J, Schmidt H, et al. Gay men’s attitudes to biomedical HIV prevention: key findings from the PrEPARE Project 2015. Sydney: Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW Australia; 2015. https://csrh.arts.unsw.edu.au/media/CSRHFile/Key_Findings__PrEPARE_Project_2015.pdf.
  28. 28.
    Koester K, Amico RK, Gilmore H, Liu A, McMahan V, Mayer K, et al. Risk, safety and sex among male PrEP users: time for a new understanding. Cult Health Sex. 2017;19:1301–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bernard D, Kippax S, Baxter D. Effective partnership and adequate investment underpina successful response: key factors in dealing with HIV increases. Sex Health. 2008;5(2):193–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Grace V. What is a health consumer? In: Waddell C, Petersen A, editors. Just health: inequality in illness, care and prevention. Melbourne: Churchill Livingstone; 1994. p. 271–81.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gee JP. An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2005.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Altman D. Power and community: organisational and cultural responses to AIDS. London: Falmer; 1994.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Holt M. Gay men’s HIV risk reduction practices: the influence of epistemic communities in HIV social and behavioral research. AIDS Educ Prev. 2014;26(3):214–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kippax S, Race K. Sustaining safe practice: twenty years on. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(1):1–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brisson J, Nguyen V-K. Science, technology, power and sex: PrEP and HIV-positive gay men in Paris. Cult Health Sex. 2017;19(10):1066–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Young I, Li J, McDaid L. Awareness and willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis amongst gay and bisexual men in scotland: implications for biomedical HIV prevention. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(5):e64038.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hankins C, Macklin R, Warren M. Translating PrEP effectiveness into public health impact: key considerations for decision-makers on cost-effectiveness, price, regulatory issues, distributive justice and advocacy for access. J Int AIDS Soc. 2015;18(4 Suppl 3):19973.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bacchi C, Goodwin S. Poststructural policy analysis: a guide to practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christy Newman
    • 1
  • Shana Hughes
    • 2
  • Asha Persson
    • 1
  • Hong-Ha M. Truong
    • 2
  • Martin Holt
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Social Research in HealthUNSW SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Center for AIDS Prevention StudiesUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations