Abstract
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can significantly reduce human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission among Black women in the United States (U.S.), a group disproportionately affected by HIV. However, PrEP uptake in this HIV-vulnerable population is low. This review analyzes the factors influencing Black women's PrEP willingness using the Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations (BMVP). Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study Design (PICOS) framework, we conducted a systematic literature search and selected 24 peer-reviewed studies on PrEP willingness. Narrative synthesis revealed a heterogeneous landscape of the determinants affecting PrEP willingness among Black women, categorized into three main domains. Predisposing demographic and social factors included younger age, unmarried status, higher education, sexual or gender minority identity, trust in healthcare providers, and perceived HIV risk. Predisposing behavioral factors included condomless sex, multiple partners, and engagement in sex work. Socioeconomic status, health insurance, healthcare access, support systems, and structural challenges were identified as enabling factors influencing Black women’s PrEP willingness. Finally, the perceived need domain and health-related factors influencing the perceived need for PrEP included a history of sexually transmitted infections (STI), intimate partner violence (IPV), and birth control interference. This study emphasizes the complexity of the barriers and facilitators of PrEP uptake and, thus, the need for tailored interventions and health strategies to promote its use. Addressing the interconnected individual, interpersonal, and structural determinants of PrEP access is crucial for improving PrEP willingness and thereby advancing health equity in this population.
Resumen
La profilaxis preexposición (PrEP) puede reducir significativamente la transmisión del virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH) entre las mujeres negras en los Estados Unidos (EE.UU.), un grupo desproporcionadamente afectado por el VIH. Sin embargo, la adopción de PrEP en esta población vulnerable al VIH es baja. Esta revisión analiza los factores que influyen en la disposición de las mujeres negras para usar PrEP utilizando el Modelo Conductual para Poblaciones Vulnerables (BMVP). Siguiendo las directrices de los elementos de informes preferidos para revisiones sistemáticas y metanálisis (PRISMA) y el marco de población, intervención, comparación, resultado, diseño del estudio (PICOS), realizamos una búsqueda bibliográfica sistemática en cinco bases de datos electrónicas y seleccionamos 24 estudios revisados por pares sobre la disposición a usar PrEP que cumplen con los criterios de inclusión predefinidos. La síntesis narrativa reveló un panorama heterogéneo de los determinantes que afectan la disposición a usar PrEP entre las mujeres negras, categorizados en tres dominios principales. Los factores demográficos y sociales predisponentes incluían la edad más joven, el estado civil soltero, la educación superior, la identidad sexual o de género minoritaria, la confianza en los proveedores de atención médica y el riesgo percibido de VIH. Los factores de comportamiento predisponentes, que abarcan comportamientos que se relacionan directamente con el riesgo de VIH, incluían el sexo sin condón, tener múltiples parejas y participar en el trabajo sexual. En cuanto al dominio habilitador, se identificaron el estatus socioeconómico, el seguro de salud, el acceso a la atención médica, los sistemas de apoyo y los desafíos estructurales como factores que influyen en la disposición de las mujeres negras para tomar PrEP. Finalmente, los factores de necesidad percibida y relacionados con la salud identificados incluían tener un historial de infecciones de transmisión sexual (ITS), violencia de pareja íntima (VPI) y la interferencia del control de la natalidad, todos los cuales influyen en la necesidad percibida de PrEP. Este estudio enfatiza la complejidad de las barreras y facilitadores de la adopción de PrEP, destacando la importancia de intervenciones y estrategias de salud personalizadas para promover su uso. Abordar los determinantes interconectados a nivel individual, interpersonal y estructural del acceso a PrEP es crucial para mejorar la disposición a usar PrEP, avanzando así la equidad en salud dentro de este grupo vulnerable con fuertes razones para la prevención del VIH.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
HIV Diagnoses and Perception of Infection Risk
Despite ongoing efforts, Black individuals in the U.S. remain disproportionately affected by HIV [1], accounting for 45% of diagnoses, notably through heterosexual contact, which represents 91% of HIV cases in Black individuals from 2015 to 2019 [2,3,4]. Black women, constituting 13% of the U.S. female population, disproportionately represent 55% of HIV diagnoses, with significant concentrations in the southern states [2, 5]. Their lifetime HIV risk is markedly higher than that of other groups (e.g., 17 times that of White women), underscoring ongoing racial disparities in HIV prevention access [6,7,8]. Risk factors, such as men who have sex with men (MSM) and partners with undisclosed HIV status, along with socio-cultural issues, contribute to this trend. These socio-cultural issues include intimate partner violence (IPV), sexual coercion, gender inequality, and racial discrimination [9,10,11,12,13,14]. Additionally, cisgender (cis) Black women may minimize HIV risk due to stigma and non-disclosure by partners living with HIV [12, 15, 16].
Biomedical Intervention Using PrEP
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective HIV prevention strategy that offers antiretroviral drugs to HIV-negative individuals in cases of exposure [5, 17,18,19,20]. Clinical trials of PrEP among MSM and other high-risk populations have demonstrated its effectiveness in reducing HIV infection [17, 18, 21,22,23,24,25]. Despite its efficacy [17, 18, 21, 24, 26], the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) reported only 626,000 of the 3 million targeted PrEP users by 2020 [27]. The Global AIDS Strategy 2021–2026 emphasizes reducing inequalities to eliminate AIDS by 2030, highlighting the need for integrated PrEP services for women [2, 28, 29].
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF-FTC)) in 2012 and Descovy (emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (TAF-FTC)) in 2019, both fixed-dose oral combinations of emtricitabine/tenofovir for PrEP, provided significant milestones in biomedical HIV prevention [30, 31]. It is important to note that the FDA's approval of Descovy explicitly excludes individuals who have receptive vaginal sex, including cisgender women and many transgender (trans) men. Recently, the introduction of long-acting injectable (LAI) PrEP, Cabotegravir [32], has offered a new alternative for individuals facing challenges with daily oral PrEP use [33, 34]. LAI PrEP has demonstrated superior efficacy for preventing HIV in trans and cis women [35, 36] and greater preference among Black women engaging in inconsistent condom use and sex with multiple partners [37]. LAI PrEP represents a significant advancement in HIV prevention by providing a treatment option that can be tailored to individual lifestyles and sexual health needs, potentially increasing adherence and effectiveness of PrEP regimens [27, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38].
In June 2024, Gilead Sciences announced that the twice-yearly injectable HIV-1 capsid inhibitor lenacapavir demonstrated 100% efficacy in preventing HIV in cisgender women during the Phase 3 PURPOSE 1 trial [138]. The trial results showed the superiority of lenacapavir over daily oral Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate), making it the most durable HIV prevention method proven effective in this population [138]. Based on these findings, the independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) recommended stopping the blinded phase of the trial and offering open-label lenacapavir to all participants [138]. This significant milestone in HIV prevention holds the potential to enhance adherence and outcomes for at-risk populations, particularly those facing barriers to daily pill-taking.
PrEP Use Disparities and Barriers to PrEP Uptake
Despite the availability of PrEP since 2012, notable disparities in its uptake have persisted along racial and gender lines [39,40,41,42]. Black individuals receive fewer PrEP prescriptions and are less likely to begin treatment than White individuals, with Black PrEP users constituting only 11% of the total PrEP-using population versus 69% for White users in 2016 [43,44,45]. Cisgender and transgender Black women are also underrepresented among PrEP users [46], with a five-fold lower PrEP-to-need ratio than men [47] and a lower prescription rate than White women, highlighting significant gender and racial gaps [31, 45, 48]. Key barriers to PrEP use in Black populations include low awareness [49, 50], perceived risk [51, 52], and medication safety concerns compounded by social stigma, especially in transgender women [11, 36, 53,54,55,56,57,58,59]. Structural issues such as cost, healthcare access, and the necessity for regular medical follow-ups present further challenges, although insurance often covers PrEP [38, 60,61,62,63,64]. The underutilization of PrEP is attributed to multifaceted barriers [65, 66] along the PrEP care continuum, impacting the willingness and ability to maintain PrEP regimens [64, 67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75].
PrEP Willingness
Poteat et al. (2019) emphasized exploring the later stages of the PrEP care continuum to boost uptake and adherence [76]. The PrEP continuum model by Kelley et al. (2015) [77] underscores the journey from awareness [49] to adherence, pinpointing the pivotal role of willingness in transitioning from awareness to actual use [76, 78, 79]. Research has identified key predictors of willingness to use PrEP, such as socioeconomic factors, individual risk behaviors, healthcare provider input, desire for HIV protection, trust in partners’ HIV status disclosure [80], being single, PrEP knowledge [81, 82], younger age [11, 83], and having a partner with HIV [62]. Effective PrEP implementation for Black women requires an in-depth understanding of the barriers and facilitators affecting their uptake. While some research has suggested that knowledge tends to enhance PrEP willingness in studies with predominantly White samples [11, 62, 84,85,86], this increase in awareness does not consistently lead to a willingness to use PrEP among substance-using cis Black women [87,88,89]. This discrepancy underscores the complexity of influencing Black women's attitudes [90] toward PrEP and highlights the need for nuanced education strategies. These approaches should address both advantages and concerns, aligned with women's intrinsic motivations for a balanced and informed decision-making process regarding PrEP [89, 91].
Underlying Conceptual Framework
This review used the Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations (BMVP) to examine the factors influencing PrEP willingness in Black women [92, 93]. The BMVP is an extension of the original Behavioral Model of Health Services Utilization developed by Andersen and Newman in 1973 [92]. This model, which has undergone numerous revisions to adapt to changing research interests and healthcare environments [92, 93], categorizes the individual determinants into predisposing, enabling, and need factors [92, 93]. The BMVP, developed by Gelberg, Andersen, and Leake, introduces additional domains to address the health and healthcare challenges faced by vulnerable populations [93]. This model emphasizes the importance of social structure and enabling resources, which are particularly relevant for understanding the health behaviors of vulnerable groups. We explored predisposing elements, such as socio-demographics, substance use, sociocultural vulnerabilities, and enabling factors, such as individual resources and health service support. Need-related factors such as health beliefs and perceived risks were also assessed. This framework underpins narrative synthesis and provides a structured approach that allows for a comprehensive understanding of the nuances of PrEP willingness.
Systematic Review Question
What factors are currently known to be associated with Black women’s willingness to take PrEP for HIV prevention?
Rationale
Although research on PrEP willingness is growing [94,95,96,97,98,99], studies that specifically examine Black women's willingness and interest in initiating PrEP for HIV prevention remain scarce [86, 100,101,102]. Much of the existing research predominantly focuses on MSM populations or includes only a small number of Black female participants [103, 104]. This comprehensive review of existing willingness-related findings in the U.S. highlights the need to fill these gaps, target unique barriers, and identify facilitators affecting readiness and motivation to initiate PrEP use. The findings from this review offer insights to inform integrating the 'willingness' stage of the PrEP continuum to shape future behavioral research interventions for this vulnerable demographic with imperative reasons for PrEP use.
Objectives
This systematic review aimed to assess recent U.S. findings related to Black women’s willingness to use PrEP and use an overarching conceptual model (BMVP) [93] to organize the factors associated with willingness to take PrEP for HIV prevention.
Methods
This systematic review was a narrative synthesis reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [105]. Additional details are provided in Online Resource 1 of the PRISMA Checklist for preferred reporting items.
Eligibility Criteria
Table 1 presents the eligibility criteria used to select the studies for inclusion in the systematic review, detailing the requirements for language, publication type, population focus, subject matter, publication date range, and geographical scop.
Information Sources
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in May 2023 across five databases: PubMed (MEDLINE), CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, covering studies from January 1, 2012, to May 24, 2023. The starting point of 2012 marked the FDA's approval of Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) for PrEP, which catalyzed extensive research into PrEP's efficacy, acceptability, and implementation [30]. Subsequent years saw significant advancements, including the approval of Descovy (emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide) in 2019 and Apretude (cabotegravir) in 2022 [31, 32], broadening the scope of PrEP-focused research and the potential impact on diverse populations. The endpoint of 2023 ensures that it encompasses the most recent and relevant research. Thus, the 2012–2023 window allowed us to capture the trajectory of PrEP implementation and its evolving impact on public health. Additionally, the search focused on original US-based research pertinent to PrEP willingness, excluding summary articles, non-empirical studies, editorials, epidemiological reports, commentaries, case reports, and articles on HIV treatment rather than prevention.
Search Strategy
The search strategy for this systematic review was developed using a 'building block' approach, dividing the search topic into key concepts to efficiently navigate the literature [106]. The primary concepts identified were HIV, PrEP, willingness to use PrEP, and Black women (Figure 1). A relevant set of synonyms and related terms was compiled to correspond to each concept, ensuring alignment with medical subject headings specific to each database. Search queries were iteratively refined to optimize retrieval of relevant articles. Details of the search strategy and search terms are provided in the Supplemental Appendix in the study protocol.
Definition and Operationalization of Willingness
In the context of this systematic review, willingness to use PrEP for HIV prevention was defined as an individual's openness to initiate PrEP. Behavioral willingness is a component of readiness to change that is predictive of future intentional behavior change [139, 140] and is a stronger predictor of behavior than intentions or implicit attitudes [141]. It captures the spontaneous, situational aspect of decision-making, reflecting an individual's readiness to engage in behavior given the right circumstances [141]. In the included studies, willingness to use PrEP was operationalized using various measures, including self-reported future likelihood, PrEP acceptability scores, hypothetical scenarios, and attitudinal measures. Table 2 presents the key willingness measures used in each study.
Selection Process, Screening, and Data Extraction
A systematic search yielded 1,861 records across the five databases. After deduplication, 1,598 unique citations were managed using RefWorks, Excel, and RAYYAN [107]. The remaining articles were screened by three reviewers (NP, SC, and ASH) using a two-phase process. Initially, the article titles, abstracts, and descriptors were inspected against the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Subsequent full-text reviews resulted in 65 studies, of which 24 required consensus through discussion. Data abstraction included the following key elements: authorship, publication year, methodology, population, design, data sources, and outcomes relevant to PrEP willingness.
Evaluation of Methodological Quality
We employed the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies—of Exposure (ROBINS-E) tool [108] to appraise methodological biases across six domains: confounding, exposure measurement, participant selection, missing data, outcome measurement, and reporting. Signaling questions guided the appraisal by categorizing the bias as low, moderate, or high. The leading reviewer synthesized these evaluations into overarching bias judgments for each study.
Certainty Assessment of Evidence Quality
Quality appraisal of eligible studies was conducted using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [109]. The certainty of evidence for each key outcome was gauged using the PICOS framework [110]. The GRADE methodology began with the study design, adjusting for five downgrading factors (risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias) and two upgrading factors (large effect size and plausible confounding). Certainty levels were designated as high, moderate, or low, corresponding to strong, reasonable, or weak confidence in the evidence, respectively. Further details are provided in Online Resource 6.
Narrative Synthesis
The synthesis of data on PrEP willingness among Black women adhered to the narrative synthesis framework of Popay et al. [111]. It uses the Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations (BMVP) [93] to categorize factors as predisposing, enabling, or need-based. The initial synthesis included a quantitative exploration of willingness outcomes from studies, while qualitative data provided contextual depth through participants' quotes, illuminating influential factors [112].
Thematic Analysis
Thematic analysis [113,114,115] was employed to code and arrange the data into key themes that inform the domains of the model. This approach combines deductive (theory-driven) and inductive (data-driven) methods to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence PrEP willingness. For the coding process, data from the studies were independently coded using a predefined coding framework based on the BMVP domains. During theme development and framework application, coded data were grouped into themes aligned with the predisposing, enabling, and need domains of the model.
While the initial coding and categorization were guided by the BMVP (deductive approach), the analysis also incorporated inductive elements. As themes emerged from the data, they were refined and expanded based on the specific contexts and nuances presented in the studies. This combination of deductive and inductive methods allowed for a more robust and comprehensive synthesis that captured both the theoretical constructs of the BMVP and the empirical realities reflected in the qualitative data.
Results
Overview of Study Selection
Figure 2 displays the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram [116] outlining the selection process and the inclusion criteria. The final sample included 24 relevant studies on PrEP willingness that met the eligibility criteria. During the full-text assessment, nine studies were excluded for utilizing outcome measures that were incompatible with our review criteria. Furthermore, 28 studies failed to provide data specific to Black women’s PrEP willingness and were excluded. An additional four studies were omitted due to irrelevance to the targeted study population and inappropriate study type. The comprehensive records of the excluded studies are presented in Online Resource 4.
Study Characteristics
From 2014 to 2023, the included studies had an average sample size of 251, employing a variety of research designs, including survey questionnaires (Arnold 2018; Braksmajer 2018; Elopre 2022; Garfinkel 2017; Haider 2022; Patel 2019; Ojikutu 2019; Ojikutu 2020; Ransome 2020; Restar 2018; Towe 2020; Uzoeghelu 2022; Villaalba 2022; Willie 2017; Wingood 2013). Others utilized randomized controlled trial survey interventions (Hill, 2023), semi-structured interviews (Braksmajer, 2019; Chandler, 2022), and focus groups (Ayangeakaa, 2023; Kerr, 2022). O'Malley et al. (2021) and Johnson et al. (2022) used cross-sectional surveys with open-ended questions; Troutman (2021) used focus groups and quantitative surveys; and Poteat (2019) used a sequential exploratory design for qualitative data, followed by quantitative survey data. Only Ayangeakaa (2023) and Elopre (2022) compared oral and LAI PrEP modalities, with the former examining preferences qualitatively and the latter examining them quantitatively. Comprehensive data profiling of the study populations in the included studies are provided in Online Resource 2. (Table 2).
Risk of Bias Assessment Results
Bias assessment revealed moderate (n = 14) to high-risk (n = 10) biases across the studies (Table 3). Predominant biases included confounding due to uncontrolled variables, exposure classification potentially leading to social desirability effects, and selection bias from nonrandom sampling methods. Incomplete data further compromised 11 studies, with the pandemic exacerbating this issue. Outcome measurement and reporting biases were noted in ten studies, which can be attributed to subjective data interpretation and the inherent limitations of self-reporting. Refer to Online Resource 5 for the rationale for the overall risk of bias from the ROBINS-E Assessment and Online Resource 7 for the risk of bias visualization (robvis) [117].
Certainty Appraisal Results
The evaluation of certainty of evidence from the 24 studies included in this systematic review is summarized in Table 4. The certainty of evidence varies between moderate and high levels, as determined by the GRADE assessment [118, 119]. This variation is influenced by factors such as inconsistent findings, imprecise results, potential publication bias, and contextual differences in study settings. The moderate-to-high certainty ratings were mainly due to the limited number of studies with a high risk of bias, inconsistency in the reported results, and imprecise effect estimates. However, the relatively small sample sizes in many studies have raised concerns about the generalizability of the findings. Inconsistencies in effect sizes and heterogeneity across studies also affected overall confidence in the evidence. See Online Resource 6 for more information on the GRADE level of evidence for each rating applied to the reviewed studies.
Narrative Synthesis by Underlying Conceptual Framework
Narrative synthesis revealed various determinants of Black women’s willingness to use PrEP. The review findings were organized according to the overarching domains of the BMVP [93], with each including specific thematic groups and corresponding subcategories (Table 5).
Predisposing Factors
The predisposing factors influencing PrEP willingness were categorized into the following thematic groups, each of which had corresponding subcategories: (1) demographic, (2) health beliefs, (3) behavioral, (4) cultural and social factors, and (5) attitudes/intentions related to PrEP.
Demographic Predisposing Factors
Age
Age has emerged as a key demographic predisposing factor, with studies indicating that younger Black women are more willing to use PrEP, possibly because of their active engagement in sexual behaviors linked to HIV transmission and heightened risk perception (Garfinkel, 2017; Ojikutu, 2019, 2020; Johnson, 2020; Elopre, 2022). Restar (2018) reported that younger Black transgender individuals (21–25 years) in the study had significantly lower PrEP acceptability scores (β = − 2.0, SE = 0.8, 95% CI [− 3.6, − 0.4], p = 0.01) and thus were less likely to accept PrEP than older transgender individuals (26–27 years), suggesting that the impact of age on PrEP willingness varies by context. Ayangeakaa (2023) captured the essence of this variation qualitatively, illustrating that participants believed HIV risk behaviors decreased with age, as one participant stated, ‘At this point in my life I would not get on [PrEP], at 28…if I knew about it when I first to college, that probably would have been something I did or I was on because I was high risk’ (Ayangeakaa 2023). To foster early willingness, Troutman (2021) recommended promoting PrEP to younger cohorts, specifically high school and college students.
Marital Status
Ojikutu (2020) found that Black women who were single, widowed, divorced, or separated are significantly more willing to use PrEP (AOR = 2.47, 95% CI [1.4, 4.37], p = 0.002), suggesting that a single relationship status may be associated with a higher perceived HIV risk in influencing PrEP willingness. Similarly, Uzoeghelu (2022) reported that single Black women (with no arrest history) were more willing to uptake PrEP (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) = 1.69, 95% CI [1.1, 2.5]), p = 0.011). Despite this, some Black women underestimated their risk due to the presumption of monogamy, with statements like, “I wouldn’t take [PrEP] now because I’m in a monogamous relationship” and” If I have one partner and we’re faithful… I don’t feel it’s for my situation’ (Ayangeakaa 2023). Braksmajer (2019) noted cases in which Black women unknowingly engaged in unprotected sex with unfaithful partners. In these cases, relationship status was a pivotal factor in Black women’s reluctance to consider PrEP, as illustrated by a participant's remark, "I was worried about [HIV], but now that I got checked and did not have it, I am not worried. If he does go out and [have sex], I don’t think he’d do it like that [have condomless sex] because would I not have it by now?" (Braksmajer 2019).
Education
The level of education among Black women had a nuanced influence on PrEP willingness. Braksmajer (2019) identified higher education as a significant predictor of willingness to use PrEP in interviews with women experiencing intimate partner violence within the last 6 months. However, Ojikutu (2019) and Ojikutu (2020) reported an inverse relationship, where Black women with less education demonstrated greater interest in PrEP (Ojikutu 2019: aPR = 0.60, 95% CI [0.4, 1.0]), p < 0.050; Ojikutu 2020: OR = 2.22, 95% CI]1.1, 4.3], p = 0.018). This finding implies that Black women with more education might perceive lower HIV risk, potentially diminishing PrEP willingness and interest in uptake.
Sexual Orientation
Sexual orientation influences Black women's perceptions of PrEP need and willingness. Sexual and gender minority participants, who were aware of their HIV risk, expressed a clear willingness to use PrEP. A transgender woman affirmed, "I’m sexually active, and it can help me prevent HIV; why would I not take it?" (Ayangeakaa 2023). Conversely, heterosexual Black women often harbored misconceptions about PrEP's applicability, with some believing it was solely for LGBTQ + individuals, as reflected in Ayangeakaa’s findings: "I wasn’t aware that it was also for straight people" (2023). Chandler (2022) encountered similar misinformation, with participants incorrectly assuming PrEP was exclusive to MSM, echoed by a young mother: "No [I would not take it] … I thought it was strictly for homosexuals.” Additionally, some Black women viewed heterosexuality as a protective factor against HIV, a misconception that O'Malley (2020) suggested could be rectified with increased awareness: "Most straight women are not fully aware of their HIV risk. If more women learn about their risks, it would be good for society as more people are protected” (O'Malley, 2020).
Health/Healthcare Beliefs Predisposing Factors
Provider–Patient Relationships
Trust in and familiarity with healthcare providers have been identified as key factors in Black women's willingness to adopt PrEP. Studies have demonstrated a significant association between having a medical provider who meets health needs and greater PrEP willingness (Restar, 2019; β = 2.9, SE = 0.8, 95% CI [1.3, 4.4], p < 0.001), a greater likelihood of engaging in PrEP services upon provider recommendation (Towe, 2021; 30% of participants), and higher trust levels associated with increased willingness (Braksmajer, 2018; b = 1.27, aOR = 3.55, p = 0.020). Conversely, a lack of provider engagement (last seen doctor more than one year ago) (OR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.18, 0.7]; p = 0.005) (Ojikutu, 2020) has been shown to deter willingness to use PrEP. Wingood (2013) also supports this, noting an increased consideration for PrEP with trusted providers' recommendations (aOR = 13.2, 95% CI [7.5, 23.1], p < 0.001), yet embarrassment can be a barrier. Troutman (2021) highlights the impact of missed opportunities when providers fail to recommend PrEP [120], with a participant remarking, ‘If my provider would have shared this information, I probably would have known about PrEP, and would have at least used it to know what it’s like.”
Perceived HIV Risk and Likelihood of Infection
PrEP willingness was linked to HIV risk perception, as studies by Ransome (2020), Chandler (2022), and Arnold (2018) consistently revealed that Black women who self-reported greater HIV risk were significantly more willing to use PrEP. Ransome (2020) found that individual HIV risk was associated with a higher likelihood of PrEP willingness (aPR = 2.56, 95% CI [1.7, 3.9], p = 0.03). A participant in Chandler (2022) expressed willingness to use PrEP “for HIV to protect herself.” Arnold (2018) found a notable willingness to use PrEP if it was known to lower HIV risk; however, perceived risk for HIV did not strongly influence willingness to use PrEP (F (1, 146) = 11.72, p = 0.718). Ayangeakaa (2023) provided contextual insight into Black women’s awareness of sexual risk behaviors associated with HIV in their communities, reinforcing the importance of self-protection through PrEP. A Black woman emphasized this, stating, "It’s a lot of funny business going around, [you] have to protect yourself because…some people are secretive about their sex life” (Ayangeakaa 2023). Correspondingly, Towe (2021) highlighted the prevalence of HIV acquisition concerns, with 60% of participants agreeing with "I am scared of contracting HIV" and 54% with "It would help me protect myself against HIV."
Behavioral Predisposing Factors
Sexual Behaviors
Inconsistent condom use and recent condomless sex have significantly predicted Black women's willingness to adopt PrEP (Johnson 2020; O’Malley 2021). One-third of the participants in Towe's study (2021) recognized the superior protection offered by combining PrEP with condoms. Personal risk behavior acknowledgment, particularly inconsistent condom use and multiple sexual partners, prompted an interest in PrEP. For example, one participant admitted, ‘I would be willing to use [PrEP] because of [my] inconsistent use of condoms and the number of partners in the past 12 months’ (O’Malley, 2021). Another highlighted PrEP's importance for safety when involving men who have male partners: 'I am very interested in protecting myself. I want to be as safe as possible’ (O’Malley, 2021). The relevance of PrEP is further emphasized in contexts involving abusive partners who oppose condom use, where women may avoid using them to avoid conflict (Braksmajer, 2019; O’Malley, 2021). Furthermore, studies have shown that women with more sexual partners (Wingood, 2013: aOR 1.8, 95% CI [1.1, 2.7], p < 0.01; Uzoeghelu, 2022: aPR 2.61, 95% CI [1.8, 3.9], p < 0.001) and those engaging in anal sex (Uzoeghelu, 2022: aPR = 1.46, 95% CI [1.0,2.1], p = 0.043) have heightened HIV risk perceptions, and a consequent increase in interest in PrEP.
History of Exchange in Sex Work
Involvement in sex work has emerged as a predisposing factor for PrEP willingness. Participants with a history of trading sex in Garfinkel (2017) were almost five times more likely to consider taking PrEP than those without such a history (AOR = 4.94, 95% CI [2.0,12.2], p < 0.001). Towe (2021) suggests that this trend is driven by selling sex for money. Studies have consistently found that Black women with a history of sex trade demonstrated significantly higher PrEP willingness (Wingood 2013, aOR = 4.1, 95% CI [1.6, 10.5], p < 0.01; Poteat 2019, aOR = 5.79, 95% CI [1.0, 33.7], p = 0.050), likely because of increased HIV risk and viewing PrEP as a strategy to mitigate vulnerability. However, Restar (2018) found that transgender women reporting transactional sex in the past 4 months were associated with lower PrEP acceptability (β = -1.5, 95% CI [-3.0, -0.1], p = 0.040). Kerr (2022) provided further insight, suggesting the need to detach PrEP from the stigma associated with "high-risk" sexual behaviors such as sex work for income. They argued that removing such stigmas could encourage more individuals involved in sex work to be empowered to protect themselves with PrEP instead of feeling shame (Kerr, 2022).
Alcohol/substance Use Behavior
Substance use was prevalent among the participants in Towe (2021). Notably, PrEP candidates reported more frequent and problematic stimulant use, endorsed more stimulant use disorder symptoms, and were more likely to use alcohol and heroin than non-candidates. Although the participants in this study had limited knowledge about PrEP and concerns about its side effects, their willingness to take PrEP was high and correlated with perceived HIV risk due to substance use. These findings suggest that women who use stimulants and alcohol may particularly benefit from PrEP for HIV prevention.
Cultural and Social Predisposing Factors
Traditional Gender Roles
Traditional gender roles have a significant impact on willingness to and commitment to PrEP uptake. Villaalba (2022) found that subordination (aOR = 1.5, 95% CI [1.2,2.4], p = 0.05) and self-silencing among Black women (aOR = 1.6, 95% CI [0.5, 2.3], p = 0.05) were associated with lower PrEP acceptability. Braksmajer (2019) highlighted the importance of partner support in health protection choices, with some Black women expressing that their well-being was paramount, even if it meant facing partner objections to PrEP use. One participant stated, ‘If you’re with someone that is … going to be mad that you’re taking a pill that’s going to affect your life in the long run if anything was to happen then, obviously, they don’t care about your life so, yeah no’ (Braksmajer, 2019). This finding underscores the belief that sexual partners should understand the measures taken to protect their own health.
Limited Partner Communication and Distrust
Communication difficulties and mistrust regarding partners' fidelity are also key predisposing factors that motivate PrEP use among Black women. O'Malley (2021) observes that PrEP provides a sense of control for those who face challenges in discussing sexual histories with partners, as one participant shared: 'I do not always talk to my partners about their sexual history… I would feel more in control of my health by taking PrEP.' Chandler (2022) echoed this sentiment, with a participant noting that PrEP’s benefits in relationships affected by infidelity: 'Women get [HIV] from their boyfriends or husband because he has been sleeping around, so I think it would be good for someone… who believes their partner has cheated.' Fear of negative partner reactions to PrEP use is also common, with some women being concerned about skepticism or offenses (Braksmajer, 2019; Troutman, 2021). However, Ayangeakaa (2023) highlights the inherent uncertainty in relationships as a rational basis for PrEP, with a poignant remark: 'You can’t say you’re not at risk for HIV… you just never know what your partner is doing’, underlining the issue of partner distrust.
Socio-cultural Norms
Discrimination and strong religious beliefs are linked to PrEP willingness, in which personal convictions and fear of family judgment play a role. Elopre (2022) found that participants who were willing to use PrEP had significantly (p < 0.01) fewer experiences of discrimination, with a mean score of 38.44 (SD = 9.2). A participant from Kerr's study (2022) voiced concerns about family members questioning HIV medications: 'I live with my mom, so I know if I have HIV medication in the house, she’d be like, “what’s going on?”, It would be bad.' Moreover, PrEP could be perceived as indicative of infidelity, causing mistrust in relationships, with a participant stating, 'If you’re with someone and it’s supposed to be just you two, and you’re taking an HIV pill, they may be offended' (Kerr, 2022). Troutman (2021) also emphasizes the effectiveness of relatable and inspirational "PrEP spokespersons" in the community, such as pastors' wives, who could influence Black women’s acceptance [121]. One participant said, ‘If you went to my pastor’s wife and she received it well, everyone would get on board."
PrEP-Related Attitudes/Intentions in the Predisposing Domain
HIV Knowledge
HIV knowledge has emerged as a pivotal factor influencing PrEP willingness, with Elopre (2022) noting that individuals with more HIV knowledge are more inclined to use PrEP (mean score 13.32, (SD = 3.5) p < 0.01). Ojikutu (2020) highlighted a notable association between Black women's beliefs in HIV conspiracy theories and PrEP willingness (OR = 1.09, 95% CI [1.03,1.16], p < 0.001). While it may seem counterintuitive, Ojikutu (2020) suggested that this belief could represent a form of self-preservation in a society with a history of discriminatory practices, where skepticism towards healthcare may actually be a rational protective response, thereby potentially increasing empowerment and the willingness to protect themselves with PrEP (Ojikutu, 2020). In contrast, Poteat (2021) found that low HIV knowledge was significantly associated with PrEP willingness among Black women (aOR = 0.32, 95% CI [0.1, 1.0], p = 0.050). This suggests that individuals who are well versed in HIV [122] may prefer other prevention methods. Kerr (2022) proposed that insufficient knowledge about HIV transmission, influenced by PrEP stigma, could lead to fear of PrEP's safety, exemplified by a participant's quote: "I’m scared that it might backfire. What if instead of preventing AIDS, it gives you AIDS?".
PrEP Knowledge
PrEP knowledge has a nuanced predictability of Black women’s PrEP willingness [115], with some studies highlighting its varied influence across different contexts. Haider (2022) identified prior PrEP knowledge as a significant predictor of future willingness to use PrEP (aOR = 0.4, 95% CI [0.1, 0.9], p < 0.05). However, Ojikutu (2020) and Hill (2023) found that increased PrEP knowledge did not necessarily correlate with Black women's willingness to use PrEP. Furthermore, a college-aged Black women from Chandler (2022), who researched PrEP, expressed a positive view and subsequent readiness to use it if offered, saying, "[PrEP] is actually very good and accurate, and if offered, [it is] something that I need and would definitely use.”
Conversely, another participant from the same study declined PrEP usage due to insufficient information, stating, ‘I [do] not know enough about the medication’ (Chandler, 2022). Additionally, a Troutman (2021) participant articulated a newfound awareness and a cautious but open willingness to explore PrEP further:’ I feel like I have learned something. I think it’s very useful, and I want to tell more people about it. I’m hesitant, but I’m willing and open.”
Perceived Benefits and Harms of PrEP
Studies have shown that positive beliefs about PrEP's effectiveness correlate with increased willingness, underscoring how Black women’s perceptions of the benefits or potential harms of PrEP may shape attitudes toward its use. Black women with favorable attitudes toward PrEP were more likely to be willing to use it (Kerr, 2022), further illustrated by a Black woman from Ayangeakaa (2023) stating,’ I feel like having PrEP would prevent the chances of many people catching HIV. So, PrEP is a big thing.” Kerr (2022) highlighted the preventive benefits of PrEP, with one Black woman stating, ‘I just think about unprotected sex.’ [PrEP] seems like a good idea to me." Another participant acknowledged the relevance of PrEP use when perceived risk is higher: “Did I need [PrEP] at one point? Yes. Would I have taken it? Definitely, because sometimes I used condoms, but sometimes I did not. [It] would have been perfect at those times’ (Kerr, 2022). Similarly, a trans woman also recognized PrEP's role in the broader context of HIV research, expressing optimism for future advancements: "It’s awesome, with all of the research and money put into the HIV thing, it should be some progress like that, even be a cure somewhere around the corner’ (Kerr, 2022). Troutman (2021) captured the sentiment of empowerment that PrEP offers Black women, with participants commenting, "I think [PrEP] is strictly just taking care of yourself" and likening it to "a vitamin for HIV prevention."
Enabling Factors
The enabling factors influencing PrEP willingness were categorized into thematic groups, each with corresponding subcategories:1) socioeconomic, 2) healthcare accessibility, and 3) support system factors for PrEP.
Socio-economic Enabling Factors
Structural Challenges
Lower income levels emerged as a notable determinant of PrEP willingness among Black women in this review, but this relationship was complex. Ojikutu (2020) reported that individuals with lower income and expanded PrEP indications displayed significantly greater willingness to consider PrEP (OR = 1.89, 95% CI [1.1,3.2], p = 0.020), highlighting how PrEP is a valuable resource among Black women with fewer economic resources. Wingood (2013) observed a similar inclination towards PrEP among Black women of lower socioeconomic status, as women were less willing to use PrEP if the cost was $200/year (aOR = 0.60, 95% CI [0.4, 1.0], p < 0.01). However, Braksmajer (2018) indicated that a higher income was linked to a greater willingness to take PrEP, suggesting that economic stability may also play a role in PrEP adoption decision-making.
Health Insurance Coverage
Towe (2021) reported that, despite a general willingness to use PrEP, 73% of potential users were uncertain about PrEP access and affordability. Troutman (2021) reiterated this sentiment, finding that insurance coverage was a pivotal factor for women considering PrEP, with one participant emphasizing the need for affordability: "You can’t pay for the medicine or the doctor… just make PrEP affordable." Additionally, cost-effectiveness concerns were particularly pronounced among women who experienced IPV, with the price of PrEP, insurance coverage, and inconsistent healthcare being crucial issues (O'Malley, 2021), suggesting the importance of financial factors in the PrEP decision-making process of Black women.
Employment Status
In this study, employment status appeared to influence Black women’s PrEP willingness, with Wingood’s (2013) finding that unemployed women were significantly more likely to consider PrEP adoption (aOR = 1.8, 95% CI [1.2, 2.6], p < 0.01) than Black women employed full-time. Despite this, insured Black women who are employed still expressed financial challenges in accessing PrEP, stating, ‘If you want to start and pick a target population, start where people have jobs, with insurance, that can afford PrEP, without a barrier’ (Troutman, 2021). This underscores that, while employment can facilitate insurance coverage, it does not automatically resolve the financial hurdles associated with PrEP, pointing to the need for broader measures to enhance PrEP affordability and access.
Healthcare Accessibility Enabling Factors
Accessibility of PrEP Services and Transportation
Transportation barriers significantly impact access to PrEP services and consequently Black women’s willingness to use PrEP. Ojikutu (2019) found spatial access to PrEP clinics as a key enabling factor influencing Black women’s PrEP willingness (aPR = 1.16, 95% CI [1.0, 1.3], p < 0.050), as those living in areas with higher PrEP clinic density showed greater inclination for its use. However, 40% of the participants still commute to these facilities for over an hour (Ojikutu, 2019). O'Malley (2021) also highlighted the transportation challenges related to frequent medical appointments, with one IPV survivor noting, ‘My willingness to take PrEP may be affected by the number of times I would need to see a doctor,’ thus underscoring the influence of transportation challenges on PrEP uptake and adherence among Black women (O'Malley, 2021).
Geographic Region
The geographic region in which one lived appeared to shape PrEP willingness among Black women, with particular attention needed in rural and southern areas in the U.S. In states such as Alabama, for instance, known for its rural HIV challenges, Elopre (2022) suggested that online PrEP services are a viable option for cisgender women facing challenges in accessing PrEP in clinical settings. Ojikutu (2019) found that residing in the Western U.S. (aPR = 2.04, 95% CI 1.1, 3.9], p < 0.050) (versus the Northeast U.S.) and self-reporting of high HIV risk were correlated with increased PrEP willingness. Ransome (2020) further emphasized the significant impact of area-level HIV risk on PrEP willingness (aOR = 2.03, p = 0.030), highlighting the need to consider broader contextual factors of local HIV epidemiology. Moreover, Ayangeakaa (2021) noted that exposure to PrEP information “depends on your location,” with participants asserting that those in southern, conservative states might have more opportunities to learn about PrEP and ultimately have greater willingness than those in other geographic regions.
Availability of Financial Assistance, Public Social Services, and Community Resources
Various studies have emphasized the need to integrate HIV services with social programs tailored to community needs [123], including violence prevention, employment, and housing (Poteat, 2019). In Poteat (2019), transgender women expressed concerns that the emphasis on treating those living with HIV overshadows the need to promote PrEP. A telling quote illustrates this gap: “for the longest time, I haven’t been able to get services unless I have HIV… even as a homeless transgender senior with a disability’ (Poteat 2019). The study also identified provider-related barriers to PrEP provision such as discomfort in discussing sexual health, concerns about risk compensation compounded by racism, and PrEP stigma. Troutman (2021) found that PrEP use could be stigmatized as indicative of infidelity or promiscuity, as one participant remarked: “Yeah, they love to have sex with everybody.” To mitigate this stigma, some of the included studies called for PrEP services to be offered in non-traditional settings, such as harm reduction and syringe exchange programs, to broaden the reach of PrEP among Black women (Troutman, 2021; Towe, 2021; Poteat, 2019).
PrEP Modality Preferences
Black women show a preference for various PrEP modalities beyond daily oral pills, with many favoring long-acting injectable options (Elopre 2022; Ayangeakaa 2023; O’Malley 2021). Elopre (2022) reported that 69% of participants preferred non-pill forms, such as LAI, particularly among those who were more knowledgeable about HIV. Pill aversion and adherence challenges contribute to this preference, as one woman explained her difficulty with pills: 'I don’t like pills. I don’t know how to take pills' (Ayangeakaa, 2023), and another expressed a preference for injectable PrEP: 'I would be more willing to use [PrEP] if it was a shot' (O’Malley, 2021). The convenience of LAI is appealing, with one participant advocating for monthly shots: 'I think you should take the PrEP [as] a shot…they ain’t going to remember to take no pill.' Another highlights its ease: 'If you get a [PrEP shot] once a month…you ain’t got to worry about it' (Ayangeakaa 2023). The call for diverse PrEP options is clear, with a recognition of different needs: 'Some people are good with pills, and some people fear needles, so they need different things' (Ayangeakaa, 2023), indicating that PrEP acceptability may increase with more available options.
Support System Enabling Factors
Supportive Social Environment
A supportive social environment is a key enabler of PrEP willingness among Black women. Wingood (2013) found that Black women were more willing to consider PrEP if they believed that their peers would also use it, with recommendations from healthcare providers notably increasing their potential for PrEP uptake. The impact of influential peers, particularly other women, on Black women's PrEP adoption was significant (aOR = 8.3, 95% CI [4.8, 14.2], p < 0.001). Poteat (2019) observed that transgender Black women valued “receiving services from other transgender women, with one participant noting the community’s anticipation for such support, stating, “In fact, I think some people have been waiting to see that.” Additionally, Braksmajer (2019) identified that engaging in comprehensive HIV discussions with partners was a supportive enabling factor in increasing Black women's willingness to use PrEP.
Access to Culturally Sensitive Providers: Curbing Healthcare Discrimination
Access to culturally sensitive providers is crucial for Black women's PrEP uptake [120], with increased willingness observed when informed providers address their health needs (β = 2.9, p < 0.001; Restar, 2018). However, there is a notable gap in provider education on PrEP for Black women (Chandler, 2022) and the perception that conversations about PrEP are less frequent with heterosexual individuals than with MSM, as one woman noted: “It seems like providers mainly… talk about PrEP with MSM. They don’t talk about promoting it with heterosexuals” (Troutman, 2021). Skepticism, due to historically unethical medical practices, also plays a role, particularly in the transgender community (Poteat, 2019). Discrimination experiences further diminish PrEP willingness (Elopre, 2022), compounded by systemic issues, such as racial bias and stigma (Ransome, 2020). Judgment faced by Black women over medication use is emblematic of the broader stigma, with a participant reflecting, 'There’s just so much judgment with any medication. I always feel like I have to defend myself when talking about it' (Ayangeakaa, 2022), highlighting the need for stigma reduction in healthcare.
Need Factors
The themes found in the need factor domain were organized into themes of perceived need, history of STIs, current experience of IPV/non-monogamous relationships, and birth control sabotage/partner interference.
Perceived Need
'Perceived Need' in this context denotes the individual's recognition and assessment of their HIV risk and its influence on their willingness to use PrEP. Ayangeakaa (2023) and Braksmajer (2018) found a strong association between perceived HIV risk and willingness to initiate PrEP (Braksmajer: aOR = 22.1 p < 0.001). Arnold (2022) and Elopre (2022) observed that willingness is linked to the frequency of self-acknowledged risk behaviors. Ojikutu (2019) reported that individuals who saw themselves as being at higher risk due to risky behaviors were more open to PrEP (aPR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.27, 2.27]). Similarly, Patel (2019) found that those who recognized a high risk of HIV infection (OR = 6.76, 95% CI [3.3, 14.1]) or were aware of their partners’ positive status were more likely to consider PrEP. Towe (2020) also noted that awareness of PrEP's risk-reduction potential increased their willingness to use it (r = 0.190, p = 0.006). These findings highlight that personal risk assessment is a critical determinant of the perceived need for PrEP and adoption of preventive measures (Ojikutu, 2020; Troutman, 2021).
History of STI Diagnosis
Women with a history of STIs are more willing to consider PrEP (Chandler 2022; Haider 2022). Johnson (2020) reported that Black women with recent STI diagnoses showed increased PrEP willingness, a finding echoed by Ojikutu (2020), who noted a significant link between STI history and PrEP willingness (OR = 1.8, p = 0.010). O'Malley (2021) found that 70% of PrEP-willing participants cited past negative sexual health outcomes such as STIs as motivators for their willingness. One participant illustrated this concern: "I am someone who usually participates in unprotected sex. He had recently cheated and developed gonorrhea. Therefore, I worry about my health. Before reading the information about HIV, I never really thought about my chances of getting it." These insights highlight the impact of recognizing personal HIV risks informed by past STI experiences on the perceived need for PrEP (O'Malley, 2021).
IPV Experiences and Non-monogamous Relationships
Villaalba (2022) discovered that physical IPV experiences in the past year were significantly associated with Black women's willingness to use PrEP (aOR = 1.9, 95% CI [1.7, 4.3], p = 0.050). In contrast, Garfinkel (2017) found that women with a lifetime history of IPV were less likely to consider taking PrEP than those without a history of IPV (aOR = 0.71, 95% CI [0.6, 0.9], p = 0.004). Braksmajer (2019) noted that about half of women would have considered PrEP had they stayed in abusive relationships, indicating the influence of relationship dynamics on PrEP consideration. Troutman (2021) found that many participants viewed PrEP as a viable HIV prevention method for women in non-monogamous relationships, suggesting that PrEP is a safeguard against the knowledge of partners' additional sexual activities. One participant stated, "Even if you’re not high risk, you still want to take it [PrEP] because you may be monogamous, but your partner may not be; because you got a lot of men that like to do that…undercover,” (Troutman, 2021). The perception that most relationships lack monogamy led participants to endorse PrEP as a protective measure for women with concerns about their partners' fidelity, with one woman saying, "Some women know their partners cheating, but they still want that person” (Troutman, 2021). This sentiment was echoed by Chandler (2022), in which a participant suggested PrEP for those in committed relationships but aware of their partner's infidelity: “I know a lot of times women get [HIV] from their boyfriends or husband because he has been sleeping around so I think it would be good for someone who is in a committed relationship, and they know that their partner has cheated before.”
Birth Control Sabotage and Partner Interference
Willie (2017) also found that women who experienced birth-control sabotage were more likely to be willing to use PrEP. The path analysis model showed that birth control sabotage was directly related to PrEP acceptability (b = 0.19, t = 1.98, p < 0.05) and the total indirect effect from IPV to PrEP acceptability through birth control sabotage was significant (indirect effect = 0.08, p < 0.050) (Willie, 2017). One participant from Braksmajer (2019) expressed the difficulty of adhering to birth control due to an abusive and controlling partner, stating, “I wouldn’t take PrEP … I had no control over my own life. My body was his body.” Partner interference also posed a significant barrier to PrEP use, with one-third of Black women reporting IPV as an obstacle (Braksmajer, 2019). The fear of partners' violent reactions to PrEP use was also a concern, with one woman sharing, “He might want to kill her thinking that she might have HIV” (Braksmajer, 2019). Additionally, the fear of violence upon discovery of covert PrEP use was prevalent, as other women explained, “He’s gonna flip even more because he’s gonna be like ‘well you had something to hide; you must have HIV, that’s why you’re taking it’ or ‘you’re sleeping with somebody who has it” (Braksmajer, 2019). These findings highlight the complex interplay between IPV and PrEP willingness, where the desire for autonomy in health decisions is often countered by the fear of partner retaliation. Table 6 provides a comprehensive summary of the factors associated with PrEP willingness.
Gender-Specific Barriers and Facilitators to PrEP Willingness
Cisgender Women
We found that common barriers to PrEP uptake among cisgender women include stigma, medical mistrust, and low HIV risk perception (Ojikutu, 2019). Despite a high level of awareness about PrEP, many cisgender women had misconceptions about the drug, such as believing it was only for men who had sex with men (Ojikutu, 2019). Significant barriers also include concerns about side effects and fear of being judged or shamed by peers and family members for taking PrEP (Johnson, 2020; Braksmajer, 2018). Facilitators of PrEP uptake include receiving accurate information, support from healthcare providers, and understanding the protective benefits of PrEP against HIV (Johnson, 2020). Some women recognized the potential benefits of PrEP in situations where they lacked control over their partner's behavior and preferred alternative PrEP modalities, such as injectables (Ayangeakaa, 2023).
Transgender Women
PrEP acceptability among young transgender women (ages 16–29) is influenced by factors such as PrEP interest, having a medical provider who meets their health needs, younger age, and recent engagement in transactional sex (Restar, 2018). Barriers include concerns about side effects, medical mistrust, high levels of stigma, discrimination, and concerns about PrEP's interaction with hormone therapy (Restar, 2018; Johnson, 2020; Braksmajer, 2018). Structural barriers such as economic marginalization and inadequate healthcare further complicate PrEP uptake (Restar, 2018). Facilitators include targeted educational campaigns, supportive healthcare environments, and interventions that address intersectional stigma (Johnson, 2020). Transgender women demonstrated higher awareness and knowledge of PrEP due to targeted advertisements and community outreach (Ayangeakaa, 2023).
Discussion
This systematic review, guided by the BMVP, identified multiple factors affecting PrEP willingness among Black women, elucidating how these determinants can be leveraged to mitigate HIV risk and foster health equity. Key demographic variables, such as age, marital status, and education, emerged as significant factors, corroborating previous studies [30, 124,125,126]. Notably, the dual influence of education level on PrEP willingness underscores the complex interplay between knowledge and health behaviors [102, 125, 127]. Perceptions of high HIV risk also markedly increased PrEP willingness, consistent with existing research [128, 129]. The inverse relationship between substance use and PrEP willingness highlights the critical role that PrEP could play in behaviors that increase HIV risk. Cultural dynamics encompassing traditional gender roles and religiosity are pivotal in shaping attitudes toward PrEP. These findings highlight the need for culturally tailored interventions adapted to better resonate with the lived experiences of Black women.
Socioeconomic status and healthcare access were the dominant factors affecting PrEP willingness. Our synthesis highlights how financial constraints and inadequate insurance perpetuate disparities, echoing the literature's call for more inclusive healthcare policies [31, 130,131,132]. The significance of culturally competent providers as facilitators of PrEP acceptance [59, 120, 127, 133,134,135] reinforces the provider-patient relationship's centrality in healthcare delivery. However, provider bias and stigma remain formidable barriers, emphasizing the need for interventions aimed at provider education and mitigating bias [136]. This review also provides initial insights into the acceptance of LAI PrEP (Apretude) as an alternative to oral PrEP. However, only two studies in this review focused on this new modality, in contrast to 22 studies that only examined oral PrEP. Despite the limited data, the preference for more options (including LAI PrEP) suggests a positive reception among Black women owing to its perceived effectiveness, convenience, and confidentiality [Elopre, 2022; Ayangeakaa, 2023]. Thus, future research should incorporate a broader exploration of LAI PrEP, as it becomes more established in the market.
Implications for PrEP Use Among Cisgender and Transgender Women
Our review highlights distinct differences in PrEP use and associated factors between cisgender and transgender women. For cisgender women, key barriers include stigma, medical mistrust, and low HIV risk perception, while facilitators involve accurate information, support from healthcare providers, and understanding of the protective benefits of PrEP (Ojikutu, 2019; Johnson, 2020; Braksmajer, 2018; Ayangeakaa, 2023). In contrast, transgender women face unique challenges such as high levels of stigma, discrimination, and concerns about hormone therapy interactions. Facilitators of this group include targeted educational campaigns and supportive healthcare environments (Restar, 2018; Johnson, 2020; Braksmajer, 2018; Ayangeakaa, 2023).
These differences underline the need for tailored interventions to address the unique needs of each group effectively. For cisgender women, increasing PrEP uptake requires addressing prevalent misconceptions and stigma as well as improving communication and education strategies used by healthcare providers (Ojikutu, 2019). For transgender women, interventions must address specific forms of stigma and discrimination, provide safe and supportive healthcare environments, and enhance provider training on transgender health issues (Restar, 2018; Johnson, 2020).
Strengths
The strengths of this systematic review are evident through its rigorous methodology, guided by the PICO model, and adherence to the PRISMA guidelines, which underscores its transparency and credibility. A comprehensive search across five databases and a building block strategy notably reduced selection bias. By covering studies from 2013 to 2023, we captured the evolving landscape of PrEP willingness for HIV prevention among Black women. Methodological quality was assessed using the ROBINS-E tool [108], whereas the BMVP framework provided a solid conceptual base. A narrative synthesis approach facilitated thorough data exploration, and a modified GRADE assessment ensured a robust evidence evaluation. The inclusion of various study designs enriched the analysis of factors affecting PrEP willingness among Black women.
Limitations
The limitations of this review include moderate bias across studies, which affects the reliability of the conclusions. The heterogeneity of the study designs and lack of uniform measures prevented the use of meta-analysis, necessitating narrative synthesis. The small sample sizes in some studies might restrict the generalizability of the findings, with broad confidence intervals affecting the precision of the data. Despite the inclusion of studies published up to 2023, recent research may not have been captured. Furthermore, it is important to note that many of the included studies were not designed to be generalizable. Specifically, qualitative studies and those focusing on regional or specific populations of Black women often aim to provide in-depth insights rather than broadly applicable results. These studies contribute valuable contextual and detailed understanding of PrEP willingness among Black women, but their findings may not be widely applicable to all Black women across different regions and settings.
Despite these constraints, the review's methodological rigor is a counterbalancing strength. The Behavioral Model for Vulnerable Populations (BMVP) provides a structured framework for synthesizing diverse findings. However, it acknowledges the issues of bias, generalizability, data precision, and reliance on a singular behavioral model. Recognizing these limitations, we emphasize the need for further research with larger, more diverse samples and standardized measures to enhance the generalizability and robustness of future findings.
Practice, Policy, and Future Research Implications
This study highlights the need for healthcare providers to enhance cultural sensitivity in PrEP discussions with Black women, suggesting the development of tailored training programs to effectively communicate its benefits and risks. Ensuring that Black women communities receive clear and accurate information about PrEP is crucial for informed decision-making regarding HIV prevention. Policywise, there is a call for increased PrEP affordability and the inclusion of Black women's experiences in policy development to address unique challenges, such as contraceptive coercion. Future research should examine the barriers and facilitators of PrEP use, particularly oral and long-acting injectable forms, in larger cohorts of substance-using Black women to gain a deeper understanding of their needs and perceptions.
Conclusion
This review methodically evaluates the variables affecting PrEP willingness in Black women guided by the BMVP framework. It identified demographic aspects, trust in healthcare, perceived HIV risk, behavior, cultural and societal contexts, knowledge, attitudes, socioeconomic factors, social support, and perceived necessity as crucial in promoting PrEP uptake among Black women. These insights should shape customized interventions and policymaking to bolster PrEP usage with the aim of lowering HIV rates and improving sexual health within this population. Collaborative efforts among healthcare professionals, policymakers, and researchers are vital for promoting HIV prevention and fostering healthcare equity among Black women.
Data Availability
All the data analyzed in this study were obtained from publicly available sources. The data extracted from these sources are included in the supplementary tables.
Code Availability
Not applicable. No new software applications or custom codes were used during the preparation of the manuscript.
Abbreviations
- PrEP:
-
Pre-exposure prophylaxis
- HIV:
-
Human immunodeficiency virus
- CIS:
-
Cisgender
- Trans:
-
Transgender
- PRISMA:
-
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- PICOS:
-
Population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design framework
- TDF-FTC:
-
Truvada, a fixed-dose oral combination of emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate
- FTC/TAF:
-
Descovy, a fixed-dose combination of emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide
- LAI-PrEP:
-
Apretude (cabotegravir extended-release injectable suspension), long-acting injectable PrEP
- BMVP:
-
Behavioral model for vulnerable populations
- STI:
-
Sexually transmitted infection
- IPV:
-
Intimate partner violence
- ROBINS-E:
-
The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of exposure tool
- GRADE:
-
Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach
References
Sullivan PS, Satcher Johnson A, Pembleton ES, et al. Epidemiology of HIV in the USA: epidemic burden, inequities, contexts, and responses. The Lancet. 2021;397(10279):1095–06. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00395-0.
CDC. HIV surveillance | reports| resource library | HIV/AIDS | CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html. Updated 2024.
CDC. Black americans and HIV/AIDS: The basics The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation Web site. https://www.kff.org/hivaids/fact-sheet/black-americans-and-hivaids-the-basics/. Updated 2018.
Murnane PM, Celum C, Mugo N, et al. Efficacy of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 prevention among high-risk heterosexuals: subgroup analyses from a randomized trial. AIDS. 2013;27(13):2155–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283629037.
Kelesidis T, Landovitz RJ. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2011;8(2):94–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-011-0078-4.
Hess KL, Hu X, Lansky A, Mermin J, Hall HI. Lifetime risk of a diagnosis of HIV infection in the united states. Ann Epidemiol. 2017;27(4):238–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2017.02.003.
Ransome Y, Bogart LM, Nunn AS, Mayer KH, Sadler KR, Ojikutu BO. Faith leaders’ messaging is essential to enhance HIV prevention among black Americans: results from the 2016 national survey on HIV in the black community (NSHBC). BMC Public Health. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6301-0.
Wingood GM, Dunkle K, Camp C, et al. Racial differences and correlates of potential adoption of preexposure prophylaxis: results of a national survey. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63(1):S95-101. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182920126.
CDC. HIV and black/African American people in the U.S. | fact sheets | newsroom | NCHHSTP | centesrs for disease control and prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheetss/hiv/black-african-american-factsheet.html. Updated 2022.
Cooper HL, Caruso B, Barham T, et al. Partner incarceration and African American women’s sexual relationships and risk: a longitudinal qualitative study. J Urban Health. 2015;92(3):527–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-015-9941-8.
Garfinkel DB, Alexander KA, McDonald-Mosley R, Willie TC, Decker MR. Predictors of HIV-related risk perception and PrEP acceptability among young adult female family planning patients. AIDS care. 2017;29(6):751–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2016.1234679.
Calabrese SK, Willie TC, Galvao RW, et al. Current US guidelines for prescribing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) disqualify many women who are at risk and motivated to use PrEP. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;81(4):395–405. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000002042.
Rosenthal L, Earnshaw VA, Lewis JB, et al. Discrimination and sexual risk among young urban pregnant women of color. Health Psychol. 2014;33(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032502.
Van Damme L, Corneli A, Ahmed K, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):411–22. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1202614.
Flash C, Stone VE, Mitty J, Mimiaga MJ, Hall KT, Krakower D. Acceptability of oral or vaginal HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among at-risk black women in the United States. 2012.
Paxton KC, Williams JK, Bolden S, Guzman Y, Harawa NT. HIV risk behaviors among African American women with at-risk male partners. J AIDS Clin Res. 2013;4(7):221. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6113.1000221.PMID:24455447;PMCID:PMC3895435.
Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):399–410. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1108524.
Grant RM, 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):2587–99. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1011205.
Jiang J, Yang X, Ye L, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in high risk populations: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087674.
Mujugira A, Baeten JM, Donnell D, et al. Characteristics of HIV-1 serodiscordant couples enrolled in a clinical trial of antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 prevention. PLoS ONE. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025828.
Baeten JM, Donnell D, Mugo NR, et al. Single-agent tenofovir versus combination emtricitabine plus tenofovir for pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 acquisition: an update of data from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2014;14(11):1055–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70937-5.
Choopanya K, Martin M, Suntharasamai P, 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. The Lancet. 2013;381(9883):2083–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61127-7.
Cohen MS, McCauley M, Gamble TR. HIV treatment as prevention and HPTN 052. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2012;7(2):99–105. https://doi.org/10.1097/COH.0b013e32834f5cf2.
Donnell D, Baeten JM, Bumpus NN, et al. HIV protective efficacy and correlates of tenofovir blood concentrations in a clinical trial of PrEP for HIV prevention. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;66(3):340–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000000172.
Murnane PM, Heffron R, Ronald A, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV-1 prevention does not diminish the pregnancy prevention effectiveness of hormonal contraception. Aids. 2014;28(12):1825–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000000290.
Heffron R, Mugo N, Were E, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis is efficacious for HIV-1 prevention among women using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception. AIDS. 2014;28(18):2771–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000000493.
Pilgrim NA, Evans TM, Czarnogorski M. A layer plus approach to implementation research and collaboration for long-acting injectable preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention. Health Prom Prac. 2022;23(6):912–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399211053584.
World Health Organization. Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection: Recommendations for a public health approach, 2nd ed. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241549684. Updated 2016.
UNAIDS. Global AIDS strategy 2021–2026 — end inequalities. end AIDS. https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2021/2021-2026-global-AIDS-strategy. Updated 2021.
Baldwin A, Light B, Allison WE. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV infection in cisgender and transgender women in the US: a narrative review of the literature. Arch Sex Behav. 2021;50(4):1713–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01903-8.
Siegler AJ, Mouhanna F, Giler RM, et al. The prevalence of pre-exposure prophylaxis use and the pre-exposure prophylaxis–to-need ratio in the fourth quarter of 2017, United States. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28(12):841–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.06.005.
Thornhill J, Orkin C. Long-acting injectable HIV therapies: the next frontier. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2021;34(1):8–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/QCO.0000000000000701.
Flexner C, Owen A, Siccardi M, Swindells S. Long-acting drugs and formulations for the treatment and prevention of HIV infection. Int J Antimicrob Agent. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106220.
FDA. FDA approves first injectable treatment for HIV pre-exposure prevention. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-injectable-treatment-hiv-pre-exposure-prevention. Updated 2021.
Landovitz RJ, Donnell D, Clement ME, et al. Cabotegravir for HIV prevention in cisgender men and transgender women. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(7):595–608. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2101016.
Poteat T, Reisner SL, Radix A. HIV epidemics among transgender women. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2014;9(2):168–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/COH.0000000000000030.
Irie WC, Calabrese SK, Patel RR, Mayer KH, Geng EH, Marcus JL. Preferences for HIV preexposure prophylaxis products among black women in the US. AIDS Behav. 2022;26(7):2212–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-021-03571-8.
Meyers K, Golub SA. Planning ahead for implementation of long-acting HIV prevention: challenges and opportunities. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2015;10(4):290–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/COH.0000000000000159.
Lambert CC, Marrazzo J, Amico KR, Mugavero MJ, Elopre L. PrEParing women to prevent HIV: an integrated theoretical framework to PrEP black women in the United States. J Assoc Nurs AIDS Care. 2018;29(6):835–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jana.2018.03.005.
D’Avanzo PA, Bass SB, Brajuha J, et al. Medical mistrust and PrEP perceptions among transgender women: a cluster analysis. Behav Med. 2019;45(2):143–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2019.1585325.
Huang YA, Zhu W, Smith DK, Harris N, Hoover KW. HIV preexposure prophylaxis, by race and ethnicity–United States, 2014–2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67(41):1147–50. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6741a3.
van Epps P, Maier M, Lund B, et al. Medication adherence in a nationwide cohort of veterans initiating pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV infection. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2018;77(3):272–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000001598.
The POWER Study Team, Eaton LA, Matthews DD, et al. A multi-US city assessment of awareness and uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention among black men and transgender women who have sex with men. Prev Sci. 2017;18(5):505–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0756-6.
Mera R, McCallister S, Palmer B, Mayer G, Magnuson D, Rawlings K. FTC/TDF (truvada) for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) utilization in the united states:2013–2015. 2016.
Smith DK, Van Handel M, Grey JA. By race/ethnicity, blacks had the highest number needing PrEP in the US in 2015. 2018.
Marrazzo JM, Ramjee G, Richardson BA, et al. Tenofovir-based preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(6):509–18. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1402269.
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064038.
Wu H, Mendoza MCB, Huang YA, Hayes T, Smith DK, Hoover KW. Uptake of HIV preexposure prophylaxis among commercially insured persons—United states, 2010–2014. CLINID. 2017;64(2):144–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciw701.
Raifman JR, Schwartz SR, Sosnowy CD, et al. Brief report: pre-exposure prophylaxis awareness and use among cisgender women at a sexually transmitted disease clinic. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;80(1):36–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000001879.
Zhang C, McMahon J, Simmons J, Brown LL, Nash R, Liu Y. Suboptimal HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis awareness and willingness to use among women who use drugs in the united states: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Behav. 2019;23(10):2641–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-019-02573-x.
Klein H, Elifson KW, Sterk CE. “At risk” women who think that they have no chance of getting HIV: Self-assessed perceived risks. Women Health. 2003;38(2):47–63. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v38n02_04.
Pringle K, Merchant RC, Clark MA. Is self-perceived HIV risk congruent with reported HIV risk among traditionally lower HIV risk and prevalence adult emergency department patients? Implications for HIV testing. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2013;27(10):573–84. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2013.0013.
Collier KL, Colarossi LG, Sanders K. Raising awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among women in New York city: community and provider perspectives. J Health Commun. 2017;22(3):183–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2016.1261969.
Goparaju L, Praschan NC, Warren-Jeanpiere L, Experton LS, Young MA, Kassaye S. Stigma, partners, providers, and costs: potential barriers to PrEP uptake among US women. J AIDS Clin Res. 2017. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6113.1000730.
Ojikutu BO, Mayer KH. Hidden in plain sight: Identifying women living in the United States who could benefit from HIV preexposure prophylaxis. J Infect Dis. 2020;222(9):1428–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiz416.
Rael CT, Martinez M, Giguere R, et al. Barriers and facilitators to oral PrEP use among transgender women in New York city. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(11):3627–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-018-2102-9.
Rutledge R, Madden L, Ogbuagu O, Meyer JP. HIV risk perception and eligibility for pre-exposure prophylaxis in women involved in the criminal justice system. AIDS care. 2018;30(10):1282–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2018.1447079.
Salazar LF, Crosby RA, Jones J, Kota K, Hill B, Masyn KE. Contextual, experiential, and behavioral risk factors associated with HIV status: a descriptive analysis of transgender women residing in Atlanta Georgia. Int J STD AIDS. 2017;28(11):1059–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956462416686722.
Sevelius JM, Keatley J, Calma N, Arnold E. “I am not a man”: trans-specific barriers and facilitators to PrEP acceptability among transgender women. Glob Public Health. 2016;11(7–8):1060–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2016.1154085.
Marks SJ, Merchant RC, Clark MA, et al. Potential healthcare insurance and provider barriers to pre-exposure prophylaxis utilization among young men who have sex with men. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2017;31(11):470–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2017.0171.
Ndugga N, Artiga S, Orgera K. Disparities in health and health care: 5 key questions and answers. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/disparities-in-health-and-health-care-5-key-question-and-answers/. Updated 2023.
Patel AS, Goparaju L, Sales JM, et al. Brief report: PrEP eligibility among at-risk women in the southern United States: associated factors, awareness, and acceptability. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;80(5):527–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000001950.
Schwartz J, Grimm J. PrEP on twitter: information, barriers, and stigma. Health Commun. 2017;32(4):509–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1140271.
CDC. Do you have health insurance? | paying for PrEP | PrEP | HIV basics | HIV/AIDS | CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep/paying-for-prep/index.html. Updated 2022.
Kadushin G. Home health care utilization: a review of the research for social work. Health Social Work. 2004;29(3):219–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/hsw/29.3.219.
Hochhausen L, Le H, Perry DF. Community-based mental health service utilization among low-income latina immigrants. Commun Ment Health J. 2011;47(1):14–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-009-9253-0.
Baral SD, Poteat T, Strömdahl S, Wirtz AL, Guadamuz TE, Beyrer C. Worldwide burden of HIV in transgender women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(3):214–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70315-8.
Bronfenbrenner U. The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1979.
Calabrese SK, Underhill K. How stigma surrounding the use of HIV preexposure prophylaxis undermines prevention and pleasure: a call to destigmatize “Truvada whores.” Am J Public Health. 2015;105(10):1960–4. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302816.
Krakower DS, Mayer KH. The role of healthcare providers in the roll out of preexposure prophylaxis. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2016;11(1):41–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/COH.0000000000000206.
Ojikutu BO, Bogart LM, Mayer KH, Stopka TJ, Sullivan PS, Ransome Y. Spatial access and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis among black/african american individuals in the united states: cross-sectional survey. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2019. https://doi.org/10.2196/12405.
Parkhurst JO. Structural approaches for prevention of sexually transmitted HIV in general populations: definitions and an operational approach. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014. https://doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.1.19052.
Poteat T, Wirtz AL, Radix A, et al. HIV risk and preventive interventions in transgender women sex workers. The Lancet. 2015;385(9964):274–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60833-3.
Ransome Y, Kawachi I, Braunstein S, Nash D. Structural inequalities drive late HIV diagnosis: the role of black racial concentration, income inequality, socioeconomic deprivation, and HIV testing. Health & Place. 2016;42:148–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.09.004.
Ransome Y, Kawachi I, Dean LT. Neighborhood social capital in relation to late HIV diagnosis, linkage to HIV care, and HIV care engagement. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(3):891–904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1581-9.
Poteat T, Wirtz A, Malik M, et al. A gap between willingness and uptake: findings from mixed methods research on HIV prevention among black and latina transgender women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;82(2):131–40. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000002112.
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):1590–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/civ664.
Calabrese SK. Interpreting gaps along the preexposure prophylaxis cascade and addressing vulnerabilities to stigma. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(10):1284–6. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304656.
Nunn AS, Brinkley-Rubinstein L, Oldenburg CE, et al. Defining the HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis care continuum. AIDS. 2017;31(5):731–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000001385.
Tellalian D, Maznavi K, Bredeek UF, Hardy WD. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV infection: results of a survey of HIV healthcare providers evaluating their knowledge, attitudes, and prescribing practices. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2013;27(10):553–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2013.0173.
Koren DE, Nichols JS, Simoncini GM. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and women: survey of the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs in an urban obstetrics/gynecology clinic. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2018;32(12):490–4. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2018.0030.
Ojikutu BO, Bogart LM, Higgins-Biddle M, et al. Facilitators and barriers to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among black individuals in the United States: results from the national survey on HIV in the black community (NSHBC). AIDS Behav. 2018;22(11):3576–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-018-2067-8.
Doblecki-Lewis S, Lester L, Schwartz B, Collins C, Johnson R, Kobetz E. HIV risk and awareness and interest in pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylaxis among sheltered women in Miami. Int J STD AIDS. 2016;27(10):873–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956462415601304.
Flash CA, Adegboyega OO, Yu X, et al. Correlates of linkage to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among HIV testing clients. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2018;77(4):365–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000001605.
Khawcharoenporn T, Kendrick S, Smith K. HIV risk perception and preexposure prophylaxis interest among a heterosexual population visiting a sexually transmitted infection clinic. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2012;26(4):222–33. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2011.0202.
Peng B, Yang X, Zhang Y, et al. Willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among female sex workers: a cross-sectional study in China. HIV AIDS (Auckl). 2012;4:149–58. https://doi.org/10.2147/HIV.S33445.
Martin M, Vanichseni S, Suntharasamai P, et al. Factors associated with the uptake of and adherence to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in people who have injected drugs: an observational, open-label extension of the Bangkok tenofovir study. Lancet HIV. 2017;4(2):e59-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3018(16)30207-7.
Walters SM, Kral AH, Simpson KA, Wenger L, Bluthenthal RN. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis prevention awareness, willingness, and perceived barriers among people who inject drugs in Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA, 2016–2018. Subst Use Misuse. 2020;55(14):2409–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2020.1823419.
Hill MJ, Heads AM, Suchting R, Stotts AL. A survey with interventional components delivered on tablet devices versus usual care to increase pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake among cisgender black women: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Infect Dis. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08019-z.
Kwakwa HA, Bessias S, Sturgis D, et al. Attitudes toward HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in a united states urban clinic population. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(7):1443–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1407-9.
Wilson EC, Jin H, Liu A, Raymond HF. Knowledge, indications and willingness to take pre-exposure prophylaxis among transwomen in San Francisco 2013. PLoS One. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128971.
Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36(1):1–10.
Gelberg L, Andersen RM, Leake BD. The behavioral model for vulnerable populations: application to medical care use and outcomes for homeless people. Health Serv Res. 2000;34(6):1273–302.
Cohen SE, Vittinghoff E, Bacon O, et al. High interest in pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men at risk for HIV-infection: Baseline data from the US PrEP demonstration project. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015;68(4):439–48. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000000479.
Goedel WC, Halkitis PN, Greene RE, Duncan DT. Correlates of awareness of and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men who use geosocial-networking smartphone applications in New York city. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(7):1435–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1353-6.
Hoagland B, De Boni RB, Moreira RI, et al. Awareness and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men and transgender women in Brazil. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1278–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1516-5.
Hood JE, Buskin SE, Dombrowski JC, et al. Dramatic increase in preexposure prophylaxis use among MSM in washington state. AIDS. 2016;30(3):515–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000000937.
King HL, Keller SB, Giancola MA, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis accessibility research and evaluation (PrEPARE study). AIDS Behav. 2014;18(9):1722–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-014-0845-5.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-013-0560-7.
Ferrer L, Folch C, Fernandez-Davila P, et al. Awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV, willingness to use it and potential barriers or facilitators to uptake among men who have sex with men in spain. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(7):1423–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1379-9.
Kuo I, Olsen H, Patrick R, et al. Willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among community-recruited, older people who inject drugs in Washington. DC Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;164:8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.02.044.
Stein M, Thurmond P, Bailey G. Willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among opiate users. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(9):1694–700. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-014-0778-z.
Eaton LA, Kalichman SC, Price D, Finneran S, Allen A, Maksut J. Stigma and conspiracy beliefs related to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and interest in using PrEP among black and white men and transgender women who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1236–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-017-1690-0.
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. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2012.0419.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
Durai S. Building blocks: the art and science of searching the literature. Indian J Cont Nurs Educ. 2021. https://doi.org/10.4103/IJCN.IJCN_140_20.
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4.
Higgins J, Morgan R, Rooney A, et al. Risk of bias tools - ROBINS-E tool. https://www.riskofbias.info/welcome/robins-e-tool. Updated 2023.
Ryan R, Hill S. How to GRADE the quality of the evidence. 2016. http://cccrg.cochrane.org/author-resources.
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026.
Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product from the ESRC methods programme.; 2006.
Lathlean J. Qualitative methods for health research J judith green qualitative methods for health research and NickiThorogood sage 280 £19.99076194771X. Nurse Res. 2005;13(2):91–2.
Strauss A, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and technique. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1990.
Bryman A. Social research methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
Charmaz K, Lincoln Y, Denzin N. Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In: Handbook of qualitative research. ; 2000:509–535. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272787056_Grounded_Theory_Objectivist_and_Constructivist_Methods.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Method. 2021;12(1):55–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1411.
Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Repr. with corr ed. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons; 2009:649.
Pollock A, Farmer SE, Brady MC, et al. An algorithm was developed to assign GRADE levels of evidence to comparisons within systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:106–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.013.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-016-1625-1.
Nunn A, Parker S, McCoy K, et al. African American clergy perspectives about the HIV care continuum: results from a qualitative study in Jackson Mississippi. Ethn Dis. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18865/ed.28.2.85.
Van Der Straten A, Stadler J, Luecke E, et al. Perspectives on use of oral and vaginal antiretrovirals for HIV prevention: the VOICE-C qualitative study in Johannesburg, south Africa. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014. https://doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.3.19146.
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. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4683.
Willie TC, Monger M, Nunn A, et al. “PrEP’s just to secure you like insurance”: a qualitative study on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence and retention among black cisgender women in Mississippi. BMC Infect Dis. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12879-021-06786-1.
Taggart T, Liang Y, Pina P, Albritton T. Awareness of and willingness to use PrEP among black and latinx adolescents residing in higher prevalence areas in the United States. PLoS ONE. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234821.
Sophus AI, Mitchell JW, Barroso J, Sales JM. Factors associated with planned future use of PrEP in the next 3 months and likelihood to use PrEP among black cisgender HIV-negative women in texas. AIDS Behav. 2024;28(1):72–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-023-04188-9.
Tekeste M, Hull S, Dovidio JF, et al. Differences in medical mistrust between black and white women: implications for patient-provider communication about PrEP. AIDS Behav. 2019;23(7):1737–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-018-2283-2.
Oldenburg CE, Mitty JA, Biello KB, et al. Differences in attitudes about HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis use among stimulant versus alcohol using men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(7):1451–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1226-4.
Walters SM, Frank D, Van Ham B, et al. PrEP care continuum engagement among persons who inject drugs: rural and urban differences in stigma and social infrastructure. AIDS Behav. 2022;26(4):1308–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-021-03488-2.
Roth AM, Aumaier BL, Felsher MA, et al. An exploration of factors impacting preexposure prophylaxis eligibility and access among syringe exchange users. Sexual Trans Dis. 2018;45(4):217–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000728.
Smith DK, Van Handel M, Huggins R. Estimated coverage to address financial barriers to HIV preexposure prophylaxis among persons with indications for its use, United States 2015. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;76(5):465–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000001532.
Park CJ, Taylor TN, Gutierrez NR, Zingman BS, Blackstock OJ. Pathways to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among women prescribed PrEP at an urban sexual health clinic. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2019;30(3):321–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNC.0000000000000070.
Corneli A, Perry B, McKenna K, et al. Participants’ explanations for nonadherence in the FEM-PrEP clinical trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;71(4):452–61. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000000880.
Mayer KH, Agwu A, Malebranche D. Barriers to the wider use of pre-exposure prophylaxis in the United States: a narrative review. Adv Ther. 2020;37(5):1778–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-020-01295-0.
Irie WC, Mahone A, Nakka R, Ghebremichael M. Factors associated with comfort discussing PrEP with healthcare providers among black cisgender women. TropicalMed. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/tropicalmed8090436.
Bazzi AR, Drainoni M, Biancarelli DL, et al. Systematic review of HIV treatment adherence research among people who inject drugs in the United States and Canada: evidence to inform pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence interventions. BMC Public Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6314-8.
Underhill K, Guthrie KM, Colleran C, Calabrese SK, Operario D, Mayer KH. Temporal fluctuations in behavior, perceived HIV risk, and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Arch Sex Behav. 2018;47(7):2109–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1100-8.
NIAID National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. National Institutes of Health. NIH Statement on Preliminary Efficacy Results of Twice-Yearly Lenacapavir for HIV Prevention in Cisgender Women. 2024. https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/nih-statement-preliminary-efficacy-results-twice-yearly-lenacapavir-hiv-prevention
Hammer JH, Vogel DL. Assessing the utility of the willingness/prototype model in predicting help-seeking decisions. J Couns Psychol. 2013;60(1):83–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030449.
Rivis A, Sheeran P, Armitage CJ. Augmenting the theory of planned behaviour with the prototype/willingness model: predictive validity of actor versus abstainer prototypes for adolescents’ health-protective and health-risk intentions. Br J Health Psychol. 2006;11(3):483–500. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910705X70327.
Pomery EA, Gibbons FX, Reis-Bergan M, Gerrard M. From willingness to intention: experience moderates the shift from reactive to reasoned behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2009;35(7):894–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209335166.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge Kelsey L. Koym, former UTHealth Houston School of Public Health Liaison Librarian for research and instruction at The Texas Medical Center Library in Houston, Texas, for her support in conducting the systematic searches in the database, preparing the search strategy, and advising on the search methods. No other individuals have contributed to the manuscript
Funding
This research received no specific grants from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector. The authors acknowledge the support of the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth Houston) and its Member Institutions for providing Open Access funding, which was enabled and organized by the UTHealth Houston Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Alexis S. Haynes: Contributed to study conceptualization and design; wrote the study protocol; conducted methodology, literature search, primary and secondary screening of studies, and conflict resolution; performed data extraction, formal analysis, and investigation; interpreted the data; and was involved in writing—original draft preparation, review, and editing per PhD dissertation requirements. Mandy J. Hill: Provided supervision, participated in conceptualization and design, reviewed, and edited the manuscript, and conducted critical manuscript revisions for important intellectual content. Christine Markham: Participated in the conceptualization and design, reviewed, and edited the manuscript, and conducted critical manuscript revisions for important intellectual content. Vanessa Schick: Engaged in conceptualization and design, reviewed, and edited the manuscript, and carried out critical manuscript revisions for important intellectual content. Robert Suchting: Involved in conceptualization and design, reviewed, and edited the manuscript. Nivedhitha Parthasarathy and Sumaita Choudhury: Responsible for primary and secondary screening of the studies. CM, MH, VS, and RS: Offered critical insights and recommendations based on expertise. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this article. There are no competing financial or nonfinancial interests that could potentially influence the work presented in this manuscript.
Ethical approval
This was an observational review study; thus, no ethical approval was required. The authors adhered to the minimum standards and reporting guidelines for systematic review articles by systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), and protocols (Prisma-P).
Research Involving Human and Animal Rights
This article does not contain any studies involving human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Consequently, this study was exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and ethics approval.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was not obtained for this study. This systematic review did not involve human participants; therefore, consent for participation was not required.
Consent for Publication
The authors consent to the publication of the data and images submitted in this manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sims Haynes, A., Markham, C., Schick, V. et al. A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Factors Affecting Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Willingness Among Black Women for HIV Prevention. AIDS Behav (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-024-04491-z
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-024-04491-z