AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 23, Issue 10, pp 2795–2802 | Cite as

Location of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Services Across New York City Neighborhoods: Do Neighborhood Socio-demographic Characteristics and HIV Incidence Matter?

  • Byoungjun KimEmail author
  • Denton Callander
  • Ralph DiClemente
  • Chau Trinh-Shevrin
  • Lorna E. Thorpe
  • Dustin T. Duncan
Original Paper


Despite an increasing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among populations at highest risk of HIV acquisition, comprehensive and easy access to PrEP is limited among racial/ethnic minorities and low-income populations. The present study analyzed the geographic distribution of PrEP providers and the relationship between their location, neighborhood characteristics, and HIV incidence using spatial analytic methods. PrEP provider density, socio-demographics, healthcare availability, and HIV incidence data were collected by ZIP-code tabulation area in New York City (NYC). Neighborhood socio-demographic measures of race/ethnicity, income, insurance coverage, or same-sex couple household, were not associated with PrEP provider density, after adjusting for spatial autocorrelation, and PrEP providers were located in high HIV incidence neighborhoods (P < 0.01). These findings validate the need for ongoing policy interventions (e.g. public health detailing) vis-à-vis PrEP provider locations in NYC and inform the design of future PrEP implementation strategies, such as public health campaigns and navigation assistance for low-cost insurance.


Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) Neighborhoods Spatial analysis Spatial epidemiology 



Mr. Byoungjun Kim was supported in part by the NYU Training Program in Healthcare Delivery Science and Population Health funded by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Grant Number T32HS026120-01; Leora Horwitz, MD and Mark Schwartz, MD, Principal Investigators). Dr. Dustin Duncan was supported in part by grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (Grant Number R01MD013554), National Institute on Mental Health (Grant Number R01MH112406), National Institute on Drug Abuse (Grant Number R03DA039748) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Grant Number U01PS005122). We gratefully acknowledge the CDC NPIN for providing the PrEP Locator data. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers who offered very helpful comments and suggestions which allowed us to greatly improve our manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control Prevention. HIV surveillance report, 2016. Atlanta: CDC; 2017.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hall HI, An Q, Tang T, Song RG, Chen M, Green T, et al. Prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed HIV infection-United States, 2008–2012. MMWR. 2015;64(24):657–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Singh S, Song RG, Johnson AS, McCray E, Hall HI. HIV incidence, prevalence, and undiagnosed infections in US men who have sex with men. Ann Int Med. 2018;168(10):685–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Latkin CA, German D, Vlahov D, Galea S. Neighborhoods and HIV: a social ecological approach to prevention and care. Am Psychol. 2013;68(4):210–24.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duncan DT, Kawachi I. Neighborhoods and health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Williams DR, Collins C. Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health Rep. 2001;116(5):404–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pellowski JA, Kalichman SC, Matthews KA, Adler N. A pandemic of the poor social disadvantage and the US HIV epidemic. Am Psychol. 2013;68(4):197–209.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Acevedo-Garcia D. Residential segregation and the epidemiology of infectious diseases. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(8):1143–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ibragimov U, Beane S, Adimora AA, Friedman SR, Williams L, Tempalski B, et al. Relationship of racial residential segregation to newly diagnosed cases of HIV among black heterosexuals in US metropolitan areas, 2008–2015. J Urban Health. 2018. Scholar
  10. 10.
    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. New Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2587–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, Smith DK, Rose CE, Segolodi TM, et al. Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in botswana. New Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):423–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Choopanya K, Martin M, Suntharasamai P, Sangkum U, Mock PA, Leethochawalit M, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV infection in injecting drug users in Bangkok, Thailand (the Bangkok Tenofovir Study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9883):2083–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McCormack S, Dunn DT, Desai M, Dolling DI, Gafos M, Gilson R, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection (Proud): effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomised trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10013):53–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang YLA, Zhu WM, Smith DK, Harris N, Hoover KW. HIV preexposure prophylaxis, by race and ethnicity-United States, 2014–2016. MMWR. 2018;67(41):1147–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith DK, Van Handel M, Grey J. Estimates of adults with indications for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis by jurisdiction, transmission risk group, and race/ethnicity, United States, 2015. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28(12):850–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirby T, Thornber-Dunwell M. Uptake of prep for HIV slow among MSM. Lancet. 2014;383(9915):399–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Golub SA, Gamarel KE, Rendina HJ, Surace A, Lelutiu-Weinberger CL. From efficacy to effectiveness: facilitators and barriers to prep acceptability and motivations for adherence among MSM and transgender women in New York city. Aids Patient Care STDs. 2013;27(4):248–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lelutiu-Weinberger C, Golub SA. Enhancing prep access for black and latino men who have sex with men. JAIDS. 2016;73(5):547–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elopre L, Kudroff K, Westfall AO, Overton ET, Mugavero MJ. The right people, right places, and right practices: disparities in prep access among African American men, women, and MSM in the deep south. JAIDS. 2017;74(1):56–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cohen SE, Vittinghoff E, Bacon O, Doblecki-Lewis S, Postle BS, Feaster DJ, et al. High Interest in preexposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men at risk for HIV infection: baseline data from the US prep demonstration project. JAIDS. 2015;68(4):439–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bush S, Magnuson D, Rawlings MK, Hawkins T, McCallister S, Mera Giler R. Racial characteristics of Ftc/Tdf for pre-exposure prophylaxis (Prep) users in the US. ASM Microbe/ICAAC; Boston, MA2016.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Snowden JM, Chen YH, McFarland W, Raymond HF. Prevalence and characteristics of users of pre-exposure prophylaxis (Prep) among Men who have sex with men, San Francisco, 2014 in a cross-sectional survey: implications for disparities. Sex Transm Infect. 2017;93(1):52–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen YT, Kolak M, Duncan DT, Schumm P, Michaels S, Fujimoto K, et al. Neighbourhoods, networks and pre-exposure prophylaxis awareness: a multilevel analysis of a sample of young black men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Infect. 2019;95(3):228–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    LeSage JP, Pace RK. Introduction to spatial econometrics. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ward MD, Gleditsch KS. Spatial regression models. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2019.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Waller LA, Gotway CA. Applied spatial statistics for public health data. Hoboken: Wiley; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bailey TC, Gatrell AC. Interactive spatial data analysis. Essex: Longman Scientific & Technical; 1995.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Prevention Information Network (CDC NPIN). Prep Locator Database. 2018. Accessed 15 Oct 2018.
  29. 29.
    Siegler AJ, Wirtz S, Weber S, Sullivan PS. Developing a web-based geolocated directory of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis-providing clinics: the prep locator protocol and operating procedures. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2017;3(3):e58.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    New York: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. HIV epidemiology and field services program. HIV surveillance annual report, 2016. 2017.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Emory University Rollins School of Public Health. Aidsvu. 2017. []. Accessed 1 Nov 2018.
  32. 32.
    Duncan DT, Castro MC, Blossom JC, Bennett GG, Gortmaker SL. Evaluation of the positional difference between two common geocoding methods. Geospatial Health. 2011;5(2):265–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Duncan DT, Kawachi I, Kum S, Aldstadt J, Piras G, Matthews SA, et al. A spatially explicit approach to the study of socio-demographic inequality in the spatial distribution of trees across boston neighborhoods. Spat Demogr. 2014;2(1):1–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Duncan DT, Kawachi I, White K, Williams DR. The geography of recreational open space: influence of neighborhood racial composition and neighborhood poverty. J Urban Health. 2013;90(4):618–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Duncan DT, Aldstadt J, Whalen J, White K, Castro MC, Williams DR. Space, race, and poverty: spatial inequalities in walkable neighborhood Amenities? Demogr Res. 2012;26:409–48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Duncan DT, Castro MC, Gortmaker SL, Aldstadt J, Melly SJ, Bennett GG. Racial differences in the built environment—body mass index relationship? A geospatial analysis of adolescents in urban neighborhoods. Int J Health Geogr. 2012;11:11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Haining R. Bivariate correlation with spatial data. Geogr Anal. 1991;23(3):210–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Anselin L, Bera AK, Florax R, Yoon MJ. Simple diagnostic tests for spatial dependence. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 1996;26(1):77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Anselin L. Lagrange multiplier test diagnostics for spatial dependence and spatial heterogeneity. Geogr Anal. 1988;20(1):1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bozdogan H. Model selection and Akaike information criterion (AIC)—the general-theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika. 1987;52(3):345–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sclove SL. Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate-analysis. Psychometrika. 1987;52(3):333–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Florax RJGM, Folmer H, Rey SJ. Specification searches in spatial econometrics: the relevance of Hendry’s methodology. Reg Sci Urban Econ. 2003;33(5):557–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Smith DK, Toledo L, Smith DJ, Adams MA, Rothenberg R. Attitudes and program preferences of African-American urban young adults about pre-exposure prophylaxis (Prep). AIDS Educ Prev. 2012;24(5):408–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kelley CF, Kahle E, Siegler A, Sanchez T, del Rio C, Sullivan PS, et al. Applying a prep continuum of care for men who have sex with men in Atlanta, Georgia. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(10):1590–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ard KL, Edelstein ZR, Bolduc P, Daskalakis D, Gandhi AD, Krakower DS, et al. Public health detailing for human immunodeficiency virus pre-exposure prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(5):860–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bauermeister JA, Meanley S, Pingel E, Soler JH, Harper GW. Prep awareness and perceived barriers among single young men who have sex with men. Curr HIV Res. 2014;11(7):520–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    King HL, Keller SB, Giancola MA, Rodriguez DA, Chau JJ, Young JA, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis accessibility research and evaluation (prepare study). AIDS Behav. 2014;18(9):1722–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Krakower D, Ware N, Mitty JA, Maloney K, Mayer KH. HIV providers’ perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis in care settings: a qualitative study. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(9):1712–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Taylor SW, Mayer KH, Elsesser SM, Mimiaga MJ, O’Cleirigh C, Safren SA. Optimizing content for pre-exposure prophylaxis (prep) counseling for men who have sex with men: perspectives of prep users and high-risk prep Na < Ve men. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(5):871–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Galea JT, Kinsler JJ, Salazar X, Lee SJ, Giron M, Sayles JN, et al. Acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis as an HIV prevention strategy: barriers and facilitators to pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake among at-risk peruvian populations. Int J STD AIDS. 2011;22(5):256–62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Krieger N, Williams DR, Moss NE. Measuring social class in US public health research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health. 1997;18(1):341–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Duncan DT, Kawachi I, Subramanian SV, Aldstadt J, Melly SJ, Williams DR. Examination of how neighborhood definition influences measurements of youths access to tobacco retailers: a methodological note on spatial misclassification. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(3):373–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wong D. The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (Maup). In: Fotheringham AS, Rogerson PA, editors. The sage handbook of spatial analysis. London: SAGE; 2009. p. 105–23.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Krieger N, Waterman P, Chen JT, Soobader M-J, Subramanian SV, Carson R. Zip code caveat: bias due to spatiotemporal mismatches between zip codes and US census-defined geographic areas—the public health disparities geocoding project. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(7):1100–2.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. HIV surveillance annual report, 2017. New York: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; 2019.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Population Health, School of MedicineNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, College of Global Public HealthNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations