Skip to main content

Gay and Bisexual Men’s Perceptions of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) in a Context of High Accessibility: An Australian Qualitative Study

A Correction to this article was published on 24 March 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

We report on Australian gay and bisexual men’s (GBM) perceptions of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Drawing on an online longitudinal cohort study, 1,404 free-text responses from HIV-negative or untested Australian GBM were qualitatively analysed. The chi-square statistic was then used to assess differences regarding PrEP-perceptions by participants’ demographic and behavioral characteristics. Positive views of PrEP were twice more common than negative. Those with positive views thought PrEP helped overcome HIV fear and anxiety, enhanced sexual pleasure, and was a ‘socially responsible’ course of action. Those with negative views believed that people without medical conditions did not need medication and expressed concern that PrEP was replacing condoms, representing ‘dangerous’ behavior. Descriptive statistics revealed differences in PrEP-perceptions relating to age, recency of HIV testing, and PrEP eligibility. This study is the first to use free-text data to examine the frequency of Australian GBM’s PrEP-perceptions, highlighting the potential benefits and challenges to its promotion.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Change history

  • 24 March 2020

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained an error. The authors would like to correct the error with this erratum.

References

  1. Fonner VA, Dalflish SL, Kennedy CE, et al. Effectiveness and safety of oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis for all populations. AIDS. 2016;30(12):1973–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. World Health Organisation. Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection: recommendations for a public health approach. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ryan KE, Mak A, Stoove M, 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Zablotska IB, Selvey C, Guy R, 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. AIDS Council of New South Wales (ACON). How much does PrEP cost? Available from: https://endinghiv.org.au/blog/how-much-does-prep-cost/# Accessed 2 Dec 2019

  6. Holt M, Lea T, Kippax S, et al. Awareness and knowledge of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among Australian gay and bisexual men: results of a national, online survey. Sex Health. 2016;13(4):359–65.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Institute K. HIV, Viral hepatitis and sexually transmissible infections in Australia: annual surveillance report 2018. Sydney, NSW: Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Holt M, Lea T, Mao L, et al. Community-level changes in condom use and uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis by gay and bisexual men in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia: results of repeated behavioral surveillance in 2013–17. Lancet HIV. 2018;5(8):e448–e456.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hunt G. New Medicine to Help End the transmission of HIV. Somerville, Victoria; 2018. Available from: https://www.greghunt.com.au/new-medicine-to-help-end-the-transmission-of-hiv/ Accessed 12 Mar 2019.

  10. Zablotska IB, Gray R, Whittaker B, et al. The estimated number of potential PrEP users among gay-identifying men who have sex with men in Australia. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(10):e0204138.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Wright E, Grulich A, Roy K, et al. Australasian society for HIV, viral hepatitis and sexual health medicine HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: clinical guidelines. J Virus Erad. 2018;4(2):143.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. PrEP Watch. Country Updates. Available from: https://www.prepwatch.org/in-practice/country-updates/ Accessed 2 Dec 2019.

  13. To KW, Lee SS. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in South East Asia: a focused review on present situation. Intl J Infect Dis. 2018;77:113–7.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Zablotska I, Grulich AE, Phanuphak N, et al. PrEP implementation in the Asia-Pacific region: opportunities, implementation and barriers. J Intl AIDS Soc. 2016;19(7):21119.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bourne A, Alba B, Garner A, et al. Use of, and likelihood of using, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in Europe and Central Asia: findings from a 2017 large geosocial networking application survey. Sex Trans Infect. 2019;95(3):187–92.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hayes R, Schmidt AJ, Pharris A, et al. Estimating the ‘PrEP Gap’: how implementation and access to PrEP differ between countries in Europe and Central Asia in 2019. Euro Surveill. 2019;24(41):1900598.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. UNITAID. Thirteen countries from Asia and the Pacific plan scale up of PrEP and HIV self-testing. Available from: https://unitaid.org/news-blog/thirteen-countries-from-asia-and-the-pacific-plan-scale-up-of-prep-and-hiv-self-testing/#en Accessed 2 Dec 2019.

  18. Holloway IW, Tan D, Gildner JL, et al. Facilitators and barriers to pre-exposure prophylaxis willingness among young men who have sex with men who use geosocial networking applications in California. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2017;31(12):517–27.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kesler MA, Kaul R, Myers T, et al. Perceived HIV risk, actual sexual HIV risk and willingness to take pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in Toronto, Canada. AIDS Care. 2016;28(11):1378–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Peng P, Su S, Fairley CK, et al. A global estimate of the acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV among men who have sex with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(4):1063–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pérez-Figueroa RE, Kapadia F, Barton SC, Eddy JA, Halkitis PN. Acceptability of PrEP uptake among racially/ethnically diverse young men who have sex with men: the P18 study. AIDS Educ Prev. 2015;27(2):112–25.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 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):772–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vaccher SJ, Kaldor JM, Callander D, Zablotska IB, Haire B. Qualitative insights into adherence to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among Australian gay and bisexual men. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2018;32(12):519–28.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Yi S, Tuot S, Mwai GW, et al. Awareness and willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017;20(1):21580.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rich JL, Chojenta C, Loxton D. Quality, rigour and usefulness of free-text comments collected by a large population based longitudinal study-ALSWH. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(7):e68832.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Decorte T, Malm A, Sznitman SR, et al. The challenges and benefits of analyzing feedback comments in surveys: lessons from a cross-national online survey of small-scale cannabis growers. Methodol Innov. 2019;12(1):2059799119825606. https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799119825606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hammoud MA, Jin FY, Degenhardt L, et al. Following lives undergoing change (Flux) study: Profile of an online cohort of drug use among gay and bisexual men in Australia. Int J Drug Pol. 2017;41:41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):117.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Haire BG. Preexposure prophylaxis-related stigma: strategies to improve uptake and adherence–a narrative review. HIV/AIDS (Auckl). 2015;7:241–9.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Girard G, Patten S, LeBlanc MA, Adam BD, Jackson E. Is HIV prevention creating new biosocialities among gay men? Treatment as prevention and pre-exposure prophylaxis in Canada. Soc Health Ill. 2018;41(3):484–501.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Race K. Reluctant objects: sexual pleasure as a problem for HIV biomedical prevention. GLQ: J Lesbian Gay Stud. 2016;22(1):1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Brooks RA, Landovitz RJ, Kaplan RL, Lieber E, Lee SJ, Barkley TW. Sexual risk behaviors and acceptability of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among HIV-negative gay and bisexual men in serodiscordant relationships: a mixed methods study. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2012;26(2):87–94.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. 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):1080–95.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Holt M, Lea T, Bear B, et al. Trends in attitudes to and the use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis by australian gay and bisexual men, 2011–2017: implications for further implementation from a diffusion of innovations perspective. AIDS Behav. 2019;23(7):1939–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Holt M, Lea T, Schmidt HM, 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, 2011–15. Sex Trans Infect. 2017;93(6):438–44.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hughes SD, Sheon N, Andrew EV, Cohen SE, Doblecki-Lewis S, Liu AY. Body/selves and beyond: men’s narratives of sexual behavior on PrEP. Med Anthropol. 2018;37(5):387–400.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 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):1301–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Newman PA, Guta A, Lacombe-Duncan A, Tepjan S. Clinical exigencies, psychosocial realities: negotiating HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis beyond the cascade among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in Canada. J Int AIDS Soc. 2018;21(11):e25211.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Vaccher SJ, Gianacas C, Templeton DJ, et al. Baseline preferences for daily, event-driven, or periodic HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among gay and bisexual men in the prelude demonstration project. Front Public Health. 2017;5:341.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, et al. Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61(1):133–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Pilkington V, Hill A, Hughes S, Nwokolo N, Pozniak A. How safe is TDF/FTC as PrEP? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of adverse events in 13 randomised trials of PrEP. J Virus Erad. 2018;4(4):215–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Dumit J. Drugs for life. Mol Interv. 2002;2(3):124–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Martin E. The pharmaceutical person. BioSoc. 2006;1(3):273–87.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Smyth JD, Dillman D, Christian LM, McBride M. Open-ended questions in web surveys: can increasing the size of answer boxes and providing extra verbal instructions improve response quality? Public Opin Q. 2009;73(2):325–37.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC), ARC Grant number: DP140102483, and by a Gilead Research Fellowship. The institutes involved in this project receive funding from the Australian Government Department of Health. Two authors are funded by the award of a National Health and Medical Research Council Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven Philpot.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Philpot, S., Prestage, G., Holt, M. et al. Gay and Bisexual Men’s Perceptions of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) in a Context of High Accessibility: An Australian Qualitative Study. AIDS Behav 24, 2369–2380 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-020-02796-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-020-02796-3

Keywords