4.1 Article

Motivators, concerns, and barriers to adoption of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among gay and bisexual men in HIV-serodiscordant male relationships

Journal

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09540121.2011.554528

Keywords

preexposure prophylaxis; biomedical strategy; HIV prevention; gay men; bisexual men; racial/ethnic minority

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [P30AI028697] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [K01MH085503, P30MH058107] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NIAID NIH HHS [P30 AI028697, AI28697] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [P30MH58107, P30 MH058107, P30 MH058107-11, K01 MH085503] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study was to identify factors that may facilitate or impede future adoption of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention among gay and bisexual men in HIV-serodiscordant relationships. This qualitative study utilized semistructured interviews conducted with a multiracial/-ethnic sample of 25 gay and bisexual HIV-serodiscordant male couples (n = 50 individuals) recruited from community settings in Los Angeles, CA. A modified grounded theory approach was employed to identify major themes relating to future adoption of PrEP for HIV prevention. Motivators for adoption included protection against HIV infection, less concern and fear regarding HIV transmission, the opportunity to engage in unprotected sex, and endorsements of PrEP's effectiveness. Concerns and barriers to adoption included the cost of PrEP, short-and long-term side effects, adverse effects of intermittent use or discontinuing PrEP, and accessibility of PrEP. The findings suggest the need for a carefully planned implementation program along with educational and counseling interventions in the dissemination of an effective PrEP agent.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available