4.6 Article

Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention preferences among young adult African American men who have sex with men

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 13, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209484

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [UL1TR000448, KL2TR000450]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R25MH83620]
  3. Washington University in St. Louis Institute for Public Health
  4. National Institute of Mental Health [R01MH114657]
  5. Siteman Cancer Center
  6. Barnes-Jewish Hospital Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is effective in preventing HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM). PrEP uptake and adherence remain low and product preferences are unknown, especially among young African American MSM who are most at-risk. We conducted 26 qualitative interviews from 2014-2016 among young adult HIV-negative African American MSM regarding PrEP product preferences in Missouri. While the pill and injectable were most liked of all modalities, about a quarter preferred rectal products or patches. Most participants preferred a long-acting injectable (LAI) to daily oral pills due to better medication adherence and a dislike for taking pills. Many participants preferred daily oral pills to on-demand oral PrEP due to the inability to predict sex and the perception that insufficient time or medication would not achieve HIV protection with on-demand. A fear of needles and the perception that there would not be therapeutic levels for a long duration were concerns with injectable PrEP. Study findings highlight the need for a range of prevention options for African American MSM and can inform PrEP product development as well as dissemination and implementation efforts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available