Advertisement

Access to HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis in Practice Settings: a Qualitative Study of Sexual and Gender Minority Adults’ Perspectives

  • Christina J. SunEmail author
  • Kirsten M. Anderson
  • David Bangsberg
  • Kim Toevs
  • Dayna Morrison
  • Caitlin Wells
  • Pete Clark
  • Christina Nicolaidis
Article

Abstract

Background

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations remain at disproportionate risk of HIV infection. Despite the effectiveness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in preventing HIV, PrEP uptake has been slow.

Objective

To identify barriers and facilitators of PrEP access by examining SGM patients’ experiences with accessing health care systems and engaging with providers about PrEP in a variety of practice settings.

Design

Semi-structured, individual, qualitative interviews.

Participants

Twenty-seven sexual and gender minority adults residing in Oregon.

Approach

Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Key Results

We identified three main themes. Participants described the centrality of patient-provider relationships to positive experiences around PrEP, the necessity of personally advocating to access PrEP, and the experience of system-level barriers to PrEP access. Participants also made several suggestions to improve PrEP access including improving provider engagement with SGM patients, encouraging providers to initiate conversations about PrEP, and increasing awareness of medication financial support.

Conclusions

In order to reduce HIV disparities, improving PrEP access will require additional efforts by providers and resources across health care settings to reduce barriers. Interventions to improve provider education about PrEP and provider communication skills for discussing sexual health are needed. Additionally, there should be system-level improvements to increase coordination between patients, providers, pharmacies, and payers to facilitate PrEP access and uptake.

KEY WORDS

prevention HIV/AIDS qualitative research patient preferences doctor-patient relationships 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the participants and the nPEP/PrEP stakeholder group, particularly Miguel D. Carreon, FNP-C, DNP, for their insights and expertise that greatly assisted the research.

Funding Information

This project was supported by Oregon AIDS Education and Training Center at Portland Veterans Affairs Research Foundation and grant number K12HS022981 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The Portland State University Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Oregon AIDS Education and Training Center at Portland Veterans Affairs Research Foundation and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

References

  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Estimated HIV incidence and prevalence in the United States, 2010–2015. HIV Surveill Suppl Rep. 2018;23(1).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gilead. U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves Gilead’s Truvada® for reducing the risk of acquiring HIV. Available at: https://www.gilead.com/news/press-releases/2012/7/us-food-and-drug-administration-approves-gileads-truvada-for-reducing-the-risk-of-acquiring-hiv. Accessed November 13, 2018.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fonner VA, Dalglish SL, Kennedy CE, et al. Effectiveness and safety of oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis for all populations. AIDS. 2016;30(12):1973–1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grant R, Lama JR, Anderson PL, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2587–2599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grohskopf LA, Chillag KL, Gvetadze R, et al. Randomized trial of clinical safety of daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate among HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;64(1):79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McCormack S, Dunn DT, Desai M, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spinner CD, Boesecke C, Zink A, et al. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): a review of current knowledge of oral systemic HIV PrEP in humans. Infection. 2016;44(2):151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States – 2017 update: a clinical practice guideline. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/prep/cdc-hiv-prep-guidelines-2017.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2018.
  9. 9.
    Volk JE, Marcus JL, Phengrasamy T, et al. No new HIV infections with increasing use of HIV preexposure prophylaxis in a clinical practice setting. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(10):1601–1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Okwundu CI, Uthman OA, Okoromah CAN. Antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for preventing HIV in high-risk individuals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(7):CD007189.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Center for HIV/AIDS Viral Hepatitis STD and TB Prevention. HIV prevention pill not reaching most Americans who could benefit - especially people of color. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2018/croi-2018-PrEP-press-release.html. Accessed November 13, 2018.
  12. 12.
    Kelley CF, Kahle E, Siegler A, et al. Applying a PrEP continuum of care for men who have sex with men in Atlanta, Georgia. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(10):1590–1597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parsons JT, Rendina HJ, Lassiter JM, Whit THF, Starks TJ, Grov C. Uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a national cohort of gay and bisexual men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;74(3):285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brooks RA, Kaplan RL, Lieber E, Landovitz RJ, Lee S-J, Leibowitz AA. Motivators, concerns, and barriers to adoption of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among gay and bisexual men in HIV serodiscordant male relationships. AIDS Care. 2011;23(9):1136–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Galindo GR, Walker JJ, Hazelton P, et al. Community member perspectives from transgender women and men who have sex with men on pre-exposure prophylaxis as an HIV prevention strategy: implications for implementation. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Saberi P, Gamarel KE, Neilands TB, et al. Ambiguity, ambivalence, and apprehensions of taking HIV-1 pre-exposure prophylaxis among male couples in San Francisco: a mixed methods study. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e50061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomann M, Grosso A, Zapata R, Chiasson MA. “WTF is PrEP?”: attitudes towards pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men and transgender women in New York City. Cult Health Sex. 2018;20(7):772–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Young I, McDaid L. How acceptable are antiretrovirals for the prevention of sexually transmitted HIV?: a review of research on the acceptability of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment as prevention. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(2):195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bauermeister JA, Meanley S, Pingel E, Soler JH, Harper GW. PrEP awareness and perceived barriers among single young men who have sex with men in the United States. Curr HIV Res. 2013;11(7):520–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hannaford A, Lipshie-Williams M, Starrels JL, et al. The use of online posts to identify barriers to and facilitators of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men: a comparison to a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(4):1080–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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):248–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu A, Cohen S, Follansbee S, et al. Early experiences implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention in San Francisco. PLoS Med. 2014;11(3):e1001613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grace D, Jollimore J, MacPherson P, Strang MJP, Tan DHS. The pre-exposure prophylaxis-stigma paradox: learning from Canada’s first wave of PrEP users. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2018;32(1):24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gilmore HJ, Liu A, Koester KA, et al. Participant experiences and facilitators and barriers to pill use among men who have sex with men in the iPrEx pre-exposure prophylaxis trial in San Francisco. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2013;27(10):560–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hosek SG, Rudy B, Landovitz R, et al. An HIV preexposure prophylaxis demonstration project and safety study for young MSM. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;74(1):21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carlo Hojilla J, Koester KA, Cohen SE, et al. Sexual behavior, risk compensation, and HIV prevention strategies among participants in the San Francisco PrEP demonstration project: a qualitative analysis of counseling notes. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(7):1461–1469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liu AY, Cohen SE, Vittinghoff E, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection integrated with municipal-and community-based sexual health services. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(1):75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koester K, Amico RK, Gilmore H, et al. Risk, safety and sex among male PrEP users: time for a new understanding. Cult Health Sex. 2017;19(12):1301–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sagaon-Teyssier L, Suzan-Monti M, Demoulin B, et al. Uptake of PrEP and condom and sexual risk behavior among MSM during the ANRS IPERGAY trial. AIDS Care. 2016;28(Suppl 1):48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Amico KR, Mehrotra M, Avelino-Silva VI, et al. Self-reported recent PrEP dosing and drug detection in an open label PrEP study. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(7):1535–1540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pinto RM, Berringer KR, Melendez R, Mmeje O. Improving PrEP implementation through multilevel interventions: a synthesis of the literature. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(11):3681–3691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Calabrese SK, Magnus M, Mayer KH, et al. “Support your client at the space that they’re in”: HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescriber’s perspectives on PrEP-related risk compensation. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2017;31(4):196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Patel RR, Chan PA, Harrison LC, et al. Missed opportunities to prescribe HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis by primary care providers in Saint Louis, Missouri. LGBT Heal. 2018;5(4):250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mullins TLK, Lally M, Zimet G, Kahn JA. Clinician attitudes toward CDC interim pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) guidance and operationalizing PrEP for adolescents. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2015;29(4):193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    White JM, Mimiaga MJ, Krakower DS, Mayer KH. Evolution of Massachusetts physician attitudes, knowledge, and experience regarding the use of antiretrovirals for HIV prevention. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2012;26(7):395–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Marcus JL, Volk JE, Pinder J, et al. Successful implementation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: lessons learned from three clinical settings. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2016;13(2):116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Parker S, Chan PA, Oldenburg CE, et al. Patient experiences of men who have sex with men using pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV infection. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2015;29(12):639–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Arnold T, Brinkley-Rubinstein L, Chan PA, et al. Social, structural, behavioral and clinical factors influencing retention in Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) care in Mississippi. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0172354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chan PA, Glynn TR, Oldenburg CE, et al. Implementation of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among men who have sex with men at a New England sexually transmitted diseases clinic. Sex Transm Dis. 2016;43(11):717–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Draft recommendation statement: Prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection: pre-exposure prophylaxis. Available from: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-recommendation-statement/prevention-of-human-immunodeficiency-virus-hiv-infection-pre-exposure-prophylaxis. Accessed January 30, 2019.
  41. 41.
    Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16(1):1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hoffman S, Guidry JA, Collier KL, et al. A clinical home for preexposure prophylaxis: diverse health care providers’ perspectives on the “purview paradox.”. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2016;15(1):59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    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):1712–1721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Arnold EA, Hazelton P, Lane T, et al. A qualitative study of provider thoughts on implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in clinical settings to prevent HIV infection. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Krakower DS, Maloney KM, Grasso C, Melbourne K, Mayer KH. Primary care clinicians’ experiences prescribing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis at a specialized community health centre in Boston: lessons from early adopters. J Int AIDS Soc. 2016;19(1):21165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Krakower DS, Ware NC, Maloney KM, Wilson IB, Wong JB, Mayer KH. Differing experiences with pre-exposure prophylaxis in Boston among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender specialists and generalists in primary care: implications for scale-up. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2017;31(7):297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Underhill K, Morrow KM, Colleran CM, et al. Access to healthcare, HIV/STI testing, and preferred pre-exposure prophylaxis providers among men who have sex with men and men who engage in street-based sex work in the U.S. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e112425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bien CH, Patel VV., Blackstock OJ, Felsen UR. Reaching key populations: PrEP uptake in an urban health care system in the Bronx, New York. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1309–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Braksmajer A, Fedor TM, Chen SR, et al. Willingness to take prep for HIV prevention: the combined effects of race/ethnicity and provider trust. AIDS Educ Prev. 2018;30(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Blackstock OJ, Moore BA, Berkenblit G V., et al. A cross-sectional online survey of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis adoption among primary care physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(1):62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Petroll AE, Walsh JL, Owczarzak JL, McAuliffe TL, Bogart LM, Kelly JA. PrEP awareness, familiarity, comfort, and prescribing experience among U.S. primary care providers and HIV specialists. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1256–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Blumenthal J, Jain S, Krakower D, et al. Knowledge is power!: increased provider knowledge scores regarding pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are associated with higher rates of PrEP prescription and future intent to prescript PrEP. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(5):802–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Whitehead J, Shaver J, Stephenson R. Outness, stigma, and primary health care utilization among rural LGBT populations. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0146139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Institute of Medicine. The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: building a foundation for better understanding. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Chan PA, Mena L, Patel R, et al. Retention in care outcomes for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis implementation programmes among men who have sex with men in three U.S. cities. J Int AIDS Soc. 2016;19(1):20903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Adams LM, Balderson BH, Brown K, Bush SE, Packett BJ. Who starts the conversation and who receives preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP)?: a brief online survey of medical providers’ PrEP practices. Heal Educ Behav. 2018;45(5):723–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    National Minority AIDS Council. National HIV and PrEP Navigation Landscape Assessment. Available from: http://www.nmac.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/National-HIV-and-PrEP-Navigation-Landscape-Assessment-Report.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2018.
  59. 59.
    Bruno C, Saberi P. Pharmacists as providers of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34(6):803–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christina J. Sun
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kirsten M. Anderson
    • 1
  • David Bangsberg
    • 1
  • Kim Toevs
    • 2
  • Dayna Morrison
    • 3
  • Caitlin Wells
    • 4
  • Pete Clark
    • 2
  • Christina Nicolaidis
    • 1
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Oregon Health & Science University-Portland State University School of Public HealthPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Multnomah County Health DepartmentPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Oregon AIDS Education and Training Center at Portland Veterans Affairs Research FoundationPortlandUSA
  4. 4.Cascade AIDS ProjectPortlandUSA
  5. 5.Portland State University School of Social WorkPortlandUSA
  6. 6.Oregon Health & Science University School of MedicinePortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations