4.6 Article

Are Thai MSM Willing to Take PrEP for HIV Prevention? An Analysis of Attitudes, Preferences and Acceptance

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054288

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  2. MRC [MR/K010174/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/K010174/1, MR/K010174/1B, G0600719B] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We aimed to understand the attitudes, preferences and acceptance of oral and parenteral PrEP among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Thailand. Background: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the use of antiretrovirals to prevent HIV acquisition, has shown promising results in recent trials. To assess the potential impact of this new HIV prevention method, in addition to efficacy data, we need to understand which psychosocial factors are likely to determine its uptake among members of potential user groups. Methods and Findings: Surveys of willingness to use PrEP products were administered to MSM. Spearman's rank tests were used to uncover associations between questionnaire items. Mann-Whitney tests were performed to ascertain differences between groups. Conjoint analysis was used to examine the attitudes and preferences of MSM towards PrEP attributes. Most participants were willing to consider taking PrEP (39.2% yes, definitely'' and 49.2% yes, probably'') and perceived PrEP as giving them new possibilities in their lives (38.5% a lot of hope'' and 55.8% some hope''), even after being instructed of potential side effects and costs. HIV testing was considered the most important attribute and a daily pill and longer lasting injection in the arm were the preferred routes of administration. Conclusions: Despite its multiple challenges, MSM in Thailand would be willing to take PrEP, even if they had to experience inconvenience and expense. If PrEP were to be implemented in Thailand, our findings show that its uptake could be considerable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据