Preference heterogeneity for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis care among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in the United States: a large discrete choice experiment

Viraj V. Patel, Eli Andrade, Rebecca Zimba, Chloe Mirzayi, Chenshu Zhang, Michael Kharfen, Zoe Edelstein, Anthony Freeman, Rupali Doshi, Denis Nash, Christian Grov
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.30.24308102

Abstract

Background PrEP uptake among Black and Latino gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) remains low in the United States. The design and implementation of PrEP delivery programs that incorporate the preferences of Black and Latino GBM may overcome barriers to uptake. We aimed to identify preferences for PrEP care among high-priority GBM in the U.S. with a large discrete choice experiment.

Methods We conducted two discreet choice experiments (DCE) to elicit care preferences for (1) Starting PrEP and (2) Continuing PrEP care among GBM clinically indicated for PrEP. The DCE web-based survey was nested in a longitudinal cohort study of GBM in the U.S., implemented with video and audio directions among 16-49 year-old participants, not using PrEP, and verified to be HIV-negative. All participants were presented with 16 choice sets, with choices determined by BLGBM and PrEP implementation stakeholders. We calculated overall utility scores and relative importance and used latent class analyses (LCA) to identify classes within the Starting and Continuing PrEP DCE. Multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors associated with class membership.

Findings Among 1514 participants, mean age was 32 years; 46·5% identified as Latino, 21·4% Black, and 25·2 White; 37·5% had an income less than USD $20,000. Two latent classes were identified for Starting PrEP: Class 1 (n=431 [28·5%]) was driven by preference for more traditional in-person care, and Class 2 (n=1083 [71·5%]) preferred flexible care options and on-demand PrEP. In a multivariable model, having a sexual health doctor (adjusted OR 0·7, CI 0·5, 0·9), having a primary care provider (OR 0·7,CI 0·5, 0·9, p= 0·023), and concerns over PrEP side effects (OR 1·1, CI 1·0,1·2, p= 0·003) were all associated with class membership.

Interpretation The different preferences identified for PrEP care indicate the need for diverse care and formulation choices to improve PrEP uptake and persistence. Addressing these preferences and understanding the factors that shape them can inform the implementation of programs that increase PrEP uptake.

Introduction

New HIV infections in the United States continue to be concentrated among key populations, with gay, bisexual, and other men who reported male-to-male sexual contact (GBM) comprising majority of all new infections.1 HIV prevention with pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with oral tenofovir-emtricitabine and now long-acting injectable cabotegravir is highly efficacious, increasingly widely available across the United States (US), and a key component of the global and U.S. ending the epidemic initiatives. Despite the potential of this biomedical HIV prevention tool, there are enduring structural barriers to a robust and sustained implementation of PrEP, particularly among structurally marginalized GBM such as Black and Latino GBM (BLGBM) at high priority for HIV prevention.2–5 Although intention to use PrEP has been high among BLGBM in the United States, significant gaps between intention and use persist6–9 and uptake remains suboptimal.8 Significant disparities persist in both uptake and continued use of PrEP across racial/ethnic groups in the US.10,11 These data suggest that traditional approaches to implement PrEP are inequitable and likely recapitulating barriers to uptake and continued use seen with HIV treatment, thus exacerbating disparities in new HIV infections incidence by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age, and geography in the U.S.12,13

New strategies to improve uptake and persistence of PrEP among GBM at high priority for HIV prevention are needed. Numerous factors influence PrEP use among BLGBM in the United States,5,14–20 including care delivery strategies such as access to convenient and streamlined clinical care, affirming providers, PrEP formulation (e.g., oral daily, on-demand, or long-acting injectable), and cost – many of which could be addressed through improved design and implementation of PrEP delivery programs. Implementation of care strategies that prioritize preferences of diverse BLGBM groups may help to promote more equitable access and reduce disparities in PrEP use. However, there is a paucity of data about which specific strategies for PrEP care may be most preferred and important to engage diverse GBM not using PrEP in the U.S.. Robustly understanding such care preferences can guide programs to allocate resources to care strategies that may have the greatest potential impact.

One approach to robustly identify preferences for PrEP care is the use of Discrete Choice Experiments (DCEs).21 DCEs is a quantitative approach that can be used to systematically elicit product or program preferences in a priority population for healthcare,22 and are increasingly applied in HIV research.23,24 DCEs can facilitate the identification of product or program attributes important to the population of interest,24–28 and allow implementers to optimize real-world effectiveness by better matching the product or program attributes to those preferred by the priority population or the relative trade-offs individuals may be willing to make.

While DCEs are increasingly being used in HIV research, few studies have used DCEs or other methods to robustly identify and prioritize preferences and trade-offs for PrEP care delivery among diverse GBM groups in the U.S. In prior DCEs about PrEP program features among GBM in the U.S (N = 554),29 the sample was primarily white (>80%) – limiting its ability to identify potential differences in care preferences among diverse BLGBM groups, and was conducted in 2015 when PrEP had not yet become readily available across the U.S. The objective of the current study was to identify preferences for PrEP care initiation and continuation among diverse GBM groups at priority for HIV prevention across the U.S. but not using PrEP.

Methods

To identify the most preferred PrEP care options among individuals not currently using PrEP and high priority for HIV prevention, we conducted a DCE among a sample of participants from the Together 5,000 cohort study (T5K), an internet-based longitudinal study of a geographically diverse U.S. national sample of HIV-negative men, trans men, and trans women who have sex with men,30 50·7% of whom identify as a racial/ethnic minority. Eligibility criteria for the parent T5K study enrolled individuals with high vulnerability for HIV acquisition, aged 16-49, and not using PrEP at the time of enrollment.31 T5K participants at baseline also had to test HIV negative, have ≥2 male sex partners in the past 3-months, and met one or more additional criteria: in the past 12 months, diagnosed with rectal STI or syphilis, shared injection drug use needles, or took HIV post-exposure prophylaxis; in the past 3 months, ≥1 receptive condomless anal sex (CAS), >2 insertive CAS, or methamphetamine use. T5K participants were recruited via ads on geosocial sexual networking apps and completed twice annual online surveys and annual HIV testing by self-sampling (Orasure HIV-1 specimen collection device, returned to lab by mail for analysis).

Development and design of the DCEs

We selected attributes and their levels based on a review of the literature about PrEP barriers and facilitators among GBM in the U.S. and eliciting input via individual interviews and focus group discussions with stakeholders. We conducted 15 individual interviews with PrEP program implementers at two health departments (New York City and Washington D.C.), community-based organizations, and clinical providers. We also conducted three focus groups with BLGBM at high priority for HIV prevention and not on PrEP (recruited from the parent T5K study). Interviews took place via telephone or web-based video meetings and participants received a $35 online gift card. This process resulted in a final list of attributes and the corresponding levels (see Table 1).

View this table:
Table 1. Attributes and levels for each PrEP care discrete choice experiment
View this table:
Table 2. Participant characteristics by latent classes for Starting and Continuing PrEP Care discrete choice experiments
View this table:
Table 3. Multivariable analysis of factors associated with preference class for starting and continuing PrEP

We developed two different DCEs to focus on starting PrEP (four attributes) and continuing PrEP (five attributes), as programs may need to focus on different care attributes to support starting PrEP compared to continuing PrEP (i.e., ongoing or sustained use of PrEP after initiation). Additionally, having participants compare 9 attributes choices would have made the DCE overly complex and likely produced unreliable results. Each DCE had 16 choice tasks. See Figure 1 for an example choice task. Each choice task contained two juxtaposed scenarios comprised of different combinations of PrEP care features (i.e., attributes and levels) from which the participant had to select the preferred option. We randomized the combinations presented and the order of their presentation to each participant to reduce bias. The DCE was designed and implemented using Lighthouse Studio 9·8.1 (Sawtooth Software) and deployed using Sawtooth’s online survey hosting platform.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Example choice task for Starting PrEP

Study population and procedures

We aimed to enroll 1,500 T5K participants in the web-based DCE who, during their most recent follow-up assessment (either 12- or 24-month), tested HIV-negative and reported not using PrEP in the last 30 days. We stratified sampling by race/ethnicity (Black, Latino, and White) to help ensure robust comparisons between and within groups. Although the minimum sample size for DCEs is dependent on the maximum number of levels for any attribute, the number of choices in each choice set, and the number of choice tasks presented to each participant, precise power calculations can be difficult.32 As such, we determined our sample size to help ensure that robust comparisons would be possible between subgroups of interest, including by race/ethnicity, age, and history of PrEP use (i.e., PrEP-naïve vs prior use), as precise estimates for main effects in DCEs are generally optimized with sample sizes of about N = 200 per group.33

Invited participants received a personalized unique link via SMS or email to complete screening questions about their most recent HIV test and any recent PrEP use, as some individuals’ testing may have changed since their last T5K study assessment. Eligible participants who affirmed they were not HIV positive and had not used PrEP in the past 30 days PrEP at the time of the DCE then completed a web-based informed consent. Following consent, participants were provided with audiovisual and written directions for completing the DCE, a practice choice task about ice cream, one DCE about starting PrEP and a second about continuing PrEP, and a series of follow-up questions about health insurance, primary care, and stigma. We also merged information about participants’ demographic characteristics from the parent T5K study. Participants received a $25 online gift card for their participation.

Latent Class Analysis

We estimated individual-level zero-centered part-worth utilities for each attribute level and overall relative attribute importance using a hierarchical Bayesian multinomial logit model (MNL). Next, we conducted a latent class analysis to characterize potential preference heterogeneity and identify which combinations of levels may be most important to implement for starting PrEP and then for continuing PrEP. For each DCE, two to five class solutions were explored. Model fit was assessed using common indices (Log-likelihood, Akaike’s information criterion [AIC], Bayesian information criterion [BIC]). We also considered clinical relevancy and interpretability of the results as a factor in our final solution. These analyses were performed using Lighthouse Studio 9·8·1 (Sawtooth Software).

Multivariable Regression analysis

Bivariate analyses using Chi-square and t-tests assessed associations between the latent class membership and predictors (e.g. socio-demographic characteristics, sexual behaviors). We then conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis to estimate independent associations between participant characteristics and preferences (i.e. class membership) for Starting PrEP and Continuing PrEP. All factors used in the bivariate analyses were also included in the multivariable model. We tested for variance inflation factors (VIF) to examine multicollinearity among variables. A two-sided alpha level of 00·5 was used to determine significance for all analyses. The analysis was conducted in SAS (Version 9·4) and RStudio.

Ethical Review

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the City University of New York (CUNY) and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.

Role of Funding Source

The funder of this study had no involvement in the study.

Results

A total of 1512 individuals completed the DCE from March 2 - May 8, 2020, among whom the mean age was 29·7, most (97·4%) were cisgender men, 21·4% identified as Black (Non-Hispanic), 46·5% as Latino, and 25·2% White. The majority had college-level education or more (83·6%), 37% reported an annual income equal to or less than USD $20,000, and over a third did not have health insurance (33·8%). Over half (51·1%) did not have a personal doctor or healthcare provider and among those with a personal provider, about a third (244/741) reported their doctor or healthcare provider did not know they had sex with men.

Starting PrEP Discrete Choice Experiment

The overall average importances of each attribute for Starting PrEP are shown in Figure 2a. The attribute “How to start the PrEP conversation” had the largest relative importance (43·0%), followed by “Where to get lab testing for HIV, STIs” (23%).

Figure 2a.
Figure 2a. Starting PrEP average overall importances

A two-class solution was identified for Starting PrEP. Class 1 (n = 431, 28·5%) was characterized by a traditional PrEP clinical care model (i.e., hereafter referred to as “In-person”). Class 2 (n = 1083, 71·5%) was characterized by preferring virtual or at-home care approaches (hereafter referred to as “Virtual”). The relative care preferences (i.e., zero-centered utilities) for each level of the Starting PrEP attributes are shown in Figure 2b by latent classes. The In-Person latent class preferred in-person visits for starting a PrEP conversation at a sexual health clinic followed by a general primary care clinic and for obtaining labs in-person. The Virtual latent class had a stronger preference for starting the the PrEP conversation with virtual care options and at-home self-sample collection for lab testing. Both groups preferred flexible appointment availability and same-day PrEP start.

Figure 2b.
Figure 2b. Relative Care Preferences for Starting PrEP by Latent Class

Continuing PrEP Discrete Choice Experiment

A two-class solution was also identified for Continuing PrEP. Class 1 was characterized by preferring low-cost options and PrEP in pill-form. Class 2 was characterized by preferring no-cost options and injectable PrEP. For continuing PrEP, the attributes “Cost of care and medication” and “Form of PrEP” had the largest importance levels, 26% and 58%, respectively (see Figure 3a). The most important attribute relative to all other choices was cost, and specifically a very strong preference for no cost or copays. The next most important driver of continuing PrEP was the formulation. Class 1 had a strong preference for oral pills using on-demand dosing and a strong negative preference for an every 2-months injectable PrEP. Group 2 had a preference for injectable PrEP and a strong negative preference for daily oral PrEP.

Figure 3a.
Figure 3a. Continuing PrEP average overall importances
Figure 3b.
Figure 3b. Care Preferences for Continuing PrEP by Latent Classes

Multivariable Analyses

In the Starting PrEP multivariable model, the virtual care group (Class 2) compared to the In-Person/Traditional care group (Class 1), had lower odds (AOR, 95% CI, all P<.05) of having access to a sexual health care (AOR 0·7, 0·5-0·9), having a primary care provider (AOR 0·7, 0·5-0·9), and higher odds of concerns about PrEP side effects (AOR 1·1, 1·0-1·2). For Continuing PrEP, Group 2 (reference: Group 1) had higher odds of having ever used PrEP (AOR 0·9, 1·0-2·0) and PrEP stigma as a barrier (AOR 1·0, 1·0-1·1).

Discussion

In this discrete choice experiment study with a large geographically diverse sample of GBM from across the U.S. with behaviors at high risk for HIV, there was significant heterogeneity in preferences for care options for starting and continuing PrEP. In this study, we found that the strongest preference drivers were virtual versus in-person care options, having no cost for care visits or medications, and choice of PrEP formulation (on-demand and daily pills, long-acting injectable) and that these attributes drove stated preferences with relatively small contributions from other care options. Our findings underscore the need to provide choices for PrEP care, particularly beyond the traditional face-to-face clinical care models that predominate. For starting PrEP, the majority of participants in this sample had a strong preference for virtual care options (i.e., telemedicine and at-home labs) but almost one-third still preferred in-person care. Meanwhile for the Continuing PrEP DCE, no or low cost options and access to choices of PrEP formulations strongly drove preferences for PrEP use. Other aspects for PrEP care, such as lab testing location, time to starting PrEP, and frequency of follow-up appointments had diverse and diverging preferences, but were of relatively minor importance in this study. PrEP implementation programs could consider offering choices responsive to these preferences to optimize engaging and retaining diverse GBM at high priority for HIV prevention in PrEP care.

The results for the first DCE (Starting PrEP) showed a majority of the sample (71·5%) preferred virtual PrEP access, as well as at-home lab testing and same day PrEP start. Technology-based and low-threshold PrEP programs (i.e. telemedicine, virtual PrEP counselors, same day PrEP start) have been found to be acceptable, safe and feasible for PrEP uptake and retention in care among GBM.34,35 These strategies have been used to address barriers to PrEP uptake such as geographical location, time availability, need for in-person visits, reducing stigma, and addressing privacy concerns36,37 and expanding the use of such tools may improve uptake. However, we still found that a substantial proportion of GBM in this study (28·5%) preferred in-person care. These participants were more likely to identify as Black or Latino or have lower income. Embedding flexibility in PrEP delivery programs by leveraging technology, while also making access to in-person care easier, may address barriers at multiple levels by offering diverse paths for accessing PrEP care that meet the needs and preferences of diverse GBM in the U.S.. Additionally, this study was implemented at the time COVID-19 cases were rising, which may have also influenced preferences for virtual access.

Cost of PrEP and PrEP care continues to be a key barrier for accessing this effective prevention strategy in the United States. Our findings indicate that eliminating patient costs for PrEP care may have the largest impact on PrEP use relative to other factors examined. A recent review found that when cost sharing was eliminated for preventive care, uptake increased especially for those who had lower income.38 Cost barriers are likely compounded by the fragmented structure of the healthcare system, insurance coverage tied to employment and income-level, varied Medicaid expansion across states, and fragmented PrEP assistance programs (e.g., PrEP-AP in New York State which covers clinical and lab costs associated with PrEP care, and other programs cover medication costs).39 GBM in states with Medicaid expansion were more likely to have insurance, discuss PrEP with a provider, and to use PrEP.40 The majority of the states that have not expanded Medicaid are located in the south, where inequities in healthcare access and racial/ethnic disparities in HIV infections persist.40 For those who are insured, change or disruptions in insurance status has been associated with PrEP discontinuation due to inability to cover cost of the medication and associated care.41,42 While assistance programs such as PrEP-AP may cover the cost of provider and laboratory testing visits and medications, as of 2021, only 14 states had such programs with varying levels of cost coverage. Thus, policies and programs to reduce – if not eliminate – costs for PrEP are needed.

Our findings suggest that implementing on-demand and long-acting injectable PrEP may improve uptake among GBM who are not using PrEP. Heterogenous preferences for PrEP regimens among a large sample of GBM not using PrEP underscore the need to implement and promote access to options beyond a daily pill and may also reflect temporal fluctuations in the behaviors of GBM.43 On-demand or episodic PrEP (taking pills before and after sex) is highly effective for HIV prevention and non-inferior to daily pills, and has been shown to be acceptable for GBM who prefer not to take a daily medication.44,45 A recent study reported high levels of adherence among GBM using episodic-PrEP,46 a regimen option that can meet the preferences of GBM not interested in daily-PrEP. Additionally, long-acting injectable PrEP with cabotegravir has been found to be highly efficacious and even superior to oral formulations (possibly driven by adherence) among multiple populations (GBM, trans- and cis-gender women)47,48 as well as acceptable to GBM.49–52 Providing choices for formulation, especially combined with eliminating out of pocket costs to patients, may have a large impact on uptake and merit examination.53 Findings from contraception studies demonstrate that when cost and access issues were removed, women had high rates of contraception uptake and persistence (particularly with long acting options) and decreased unintended pregnancies,54 suggesting that a similar pattern of uptake and decreased HIV infections may hold true for PrEP implementation as well.

Interestingly, we observed in the Starting PrEP DCE that individuals who reported more anticipated stigma from a provider or had concerns about speaking to doctors about PrEP, had a higher preference for starting the PrEP conversation in more non-personal ways (e.g., telehealth) and at-home lab sampling and testing. Studies show that anticipated stigma represent barriers for PrEP uptake and can contribute to high-levels of non-disclosure of sexual-orientation, behaviors, and substance use to healthcare providers.55,56 Additionally, medical mistrust – encompassing mistrust of healthcare providers, health systems, and pharmaceutical medications – has been associated with disparities in HIV prevention and treatment use, particularly impacting populations at highest HIV risk20,57,58 and may be characterized in part by anticipated stigma and communication concerns.59 For example, among Black GBM, medical mistrust can be a barrier for routine preventive medical care,60 while for Latino GBM it has been associated with lower outcomes across the PrEP cascade.20 Our findings suggest that virtual care options may be a strategy to help overcome anticipated stigma related to sexual behaviors and identity, medical mistrust, reduce provider communication barriers and potentially improve PrEP uptake.61,62

Limitations

Findings from this study should be interpreted in the context of its limitations. First, not all potential care attributes were able to be tested in this study and there may be other drivers not measured. However, we selected attributes based on a systematic review of PrEP barriers and facilitators5 and input from BLGBM meeting CDC eligibility for PrEP, planners from two health departments, and PrEP program implementers. Next, DCE are hypothetical, and it is possible that the stated preferences may not directly predict actual behavior; a systematic review and meta-analysis of DCEs found that reported preferences generally do correspond with actual behaviors, but research is warranted to understand whether this holds true for PrEP as well. Although we had a large geographically and racially/ethnically diverse sample at high priority for HIV prevention, findings nevertheless may not be generalizable to all GBM in the U.S. who may benefit from PrEP, and there may be other preference patterns not captured by this study. The study was implemented amidst the first major wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. (March – May, 2020). Our findings regarding strong preferences for telehealth medicine could be a factor of many social distancing and stay-at-home recommendations in effect at that time. We note however, that the COVID pandemic has had sustained dramatic shifts in facets of daily life, including sustained increased availability of and demand for telemedicine. Thus, the fact that our data were gathered after the start of the COVID pandemic (as opposed to before) is perhaps more emblematic of what could be colloquially referred to as “our new reality.”

Conclusions

Results from this study underscore the need for certain choices in PrEP care, and that no one model of care will likely meet the needs of most GBM including BLGBM. Findings have implications for the design and implementation of PrEP delivery programs, and can provide guidance to policymakers and program implementers on where to consider channeling resources to facilitate PrEP uptake among GBM at the highest priority for HIV prevention in the United States. Given that the type of care access, cost, and formulation were the strongest preference drivers for starting and continuing PrEP, implementation of state and federal policies are likely needed to ensure equitable care access and cost coverage across the United States.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.

Declaration of interests

There are no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

  • Funding: This study was supported by the the National Institutes of Health Ending the HIV Epidemic supplement to the Einstein-Rockefeller-CUNY Center for AIDS Research (P30AI124414 – PI Goldstein; supplement PI Patel), UH3AI133675 (PI Grov), and K23MH102118 (PI Patel).

  • Preference heterogeneity for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis care among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in the United States: a large discrete choice experiment

References

  1. 1.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV Surveillance Report, 2020; vol. 33. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html. Published May 2022
  2. 2.↵
    Parsons JT, Rendina HJ, Lassiter JM, Whitfield TH, Starks TJ, Grov C. Uptake of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) in a National Cohort of Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2017; 74(3): 285–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.
    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.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    Serota DP, Rosenberg ES, Lockard AM, et al. Beyond the Biomedical: PrEP Failures in a Cohort of Young Black Men who have Sex with Men in Atlanta, GA. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2018. Aug 31;67(6):965–70
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Hannaford A, Lipshie-Williams M, Starrels JL, et al. The Use of Online Posts to Identify Barriers to and Facilitators of HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Comparison to a Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature. AIDS Behav 2018; 22(4): 1080–95.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Morgan E, Ryan DT, Newcomb ME, Mustanski B. High Rate of Discontinuation May Diminish PrEP Coverage Among Young Men Who Have Sex with Men. AIDS Behav 2018.
  7. 7.
    Morgan E, Moran K, Ryan DT, Mustanski B, Newcomb ME. Threefold Increase in PrEP Uptake Over Time with High Adherence Among Young Men Who Have Sex With Men in Chicago. AIDS Behav 2018.
  8. 8.↵
    Smith DK, Handel MV, Grey JA. By race/ethnicity, Blacks have the highest number needing PrEP in the United States, 2015. Abstract 86. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Boston, USA: IAS-USA; 2018.
  9. 9.↵
    Smith DK, Toledo L, Smith DJ, Adams MA, Rothenberg R. Attitudes and program preferences of African-American urban young adults about pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). AIDS Educ Prev 2012; 24(5): 408–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Bunting SR, Hunt B, Boshara A, et al. Examining the Correlation Between PrEP Use and Black:White Disparities in HIV Incidence in the Ending the HIV Epidemic Priority Jurisdictions. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2023; 38(2): 382–9.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    Carneiro PB, Mirzayi C, Jones S, Rendina J, Grov C. Demographic, clinical guideline criteria, Medicaid expansion and state of residency: a multilevel analysis of PrEP use on a large US sample. BMJ Open 2022; 12(2): e055487.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    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. Jaids-Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 2017; 76(5): 465–72.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Wu H, Mendoza MCB, Huang Y-LA, Hayes T, Smith DK, Hoover KW. Uptake of HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Among Commercially Insured Persons-United States, 2010-2014. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2017; 64(2): 144–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    Whitfield THF, John SA, Rendina HJ, Grov C, Parsons JT. Why I Quit Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP)? A Mixed-Method Study Exploring Reasons for PrEP Discontinuation and Potential Re-initiation Among Gay and Bisexual Men. AIDS Behav 2018.
  15. 15.
    Elsesser SA, Oldenburg CE, Biello KB, et al. Seasons of Risk: Anticipated Behavior on Vacation and Interest in Episodic Antiretroviral Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Among a Large National Sample of U.S. Men Who have Sex with Men (MSM). AIDS Behav 2016; 20(7): 1400–7.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.
    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.
  17. 17.
    Holloway IW, Tan D, Gildner JL, et al. Facilitators and Barriers to Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Willingness Among Young Men Who Have Sex with Men Who Use Geosocial Networking Applications in California. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2017; 31(12): 517–27.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.
    Hubach RD, Currin JM, Sanders CA, et al. Barriers to Access and Adoption of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Among Men Who Have Sex With Men (MSM) in a Relatively Rural State. AIDS education and prevention : official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education 2017; 29(4): 315–29.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.
    Rolle CP, Rosenberg ES, Siegler AJ, et al. Challenges in Translating PrEP Interest Into Uptake in an Observational Study of Young Black MSM. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2017; 76(3): 250–8.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    Cahill S, Taylor SW, Elsesser SA, Mena L, Hickson D, Mayer KH. Stigma, medical mistrust, and perceived racism may affect PrEP awareness and uptake in black compared to white gay and bisexual men in Jackson, Mississippi and Boston, Massachusetts. AIDS Care 2017; 29(11): 1351–8.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health economics 2012; 21(2): 145–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  22. 22.↵
    Viney R, Lancsar E, Louviere J. Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2002; 2(4): 319–26.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    Ostermann J, Njau B, Mtuy T, Brown DS, Muhlbacher A, Thielman N. One size does not fit all: HIV testing preferences differ among high-risk groups in Northern Tanzania. AIDS Care 2015; 27(5): 595–603.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    Ostermann J, Njau B, Brown DS, Muhlbacher A, Thielman N. Heterogeneous HIV testing preferences in an urban setting in Tanzania: results from a discrete choice experiment. PLoS One 2014; 9(3): e92100.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.
    Kruk ME, Riley PL, Palma AM, et al. How Can the Health System Retain Women in HIV Treatment for a Lifetime? A Discrete Choice Experiment in Ethiopia and Mozambique. PloS one 2016; 11(8): e0160764.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.
    Michaels-Igbokwe C, Lagarde M, Cairns J, Integra I, Terris-Prestholt F. Designing a package of sexual and reproductive health and HIV outreach services to meet the heterogeneous preferences of young people in Malawi: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Econ Rev 2015; 5: 9.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.
    Muhlbacher AC, Stoll M, Mahlich J, Nubling M. Patient preferences for HIV/AIDS therapy - a discrete choice experiment. Health economics review 2013; 3(1): 14.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    Ostermann J, Njau B, Mtuy T, Brown DS, Muhlbacher A, Thielman N. One size does not fit all: HIV testing preferences differ among high-risk groups in Northern Tanzania. AIDS care 2015: 1–9.
  29. 29.↵
    Dubov A, Ogunbajo A, Altice FL, Fraenkel L. Optimizing access to PrEP based on MSM preferences: results of a discrete choice experiment. AIDS care 2019; 31(5): 545–53.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Grov C, Westmoreland DA, Carneiro PB, et al. Recruiting vulnerable populations to participate in HIV prevention research: findings from the Together 5000 cohort study. Annals of epidemiology 2019; 35: 4–11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    Grov C, Westmoreland DA, Carneiro PB, et al. Recruiting vulnerable populations to participate in HIV prevention research: Findings from the Together 5,000 cohort study. Annals of Epidemiology 2019.
  32. 32.↵
    de Bekker-Grob EW, Donkers B, Jonker MF, Stolk EA. Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide. Patient 2015; 8(5): 373–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing Experimental Designs for Discrete-Choice Experiments: Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value in Health 2013; 16: 3–13.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    Kamis KF, Marx GE, Scott KA, et al. Same-day HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) initiation during drop-in sexually transmitted diseases clinic appointments is a highly acceptable, feasible, and safe model that engages individuals at risk for HIV into PrEP care. Open forum infectious diseases; 2019: Oxford University Press US; 2019. p. ofz310.
  35. 35.↵
    Khosropour CM, Backus KV, Means AR, et al. A pharmacist-led, same-day, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis initiation program to increase PrEP uptake and decrease time to PrEP initiation. AIDS patient care and STDs 2020; 34(1): 1–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Wong KYK, Stafylis C, Klausner JD. Telemedicine: a solution to disparities in human immunodeficiency virus prevention and pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake, and a framework to scalability and equity. mHealth 2020; 6: 21-.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    Rousseau E, Julies RF, Madubela N, Kassim S. Novel Platforms for Biomedical HIV Prevention Delivery to Key Populations — Community Mobile Clinics, Peer-Supported, Pharmacy-Led PrEP Delivery, and the Use of Telemedicine. Current HIV/AIDS Reports 2021.
  38. 38.↵
    Norris HC, Richardson HM, Benoit MC, Shrosbree B, Smith JE, Fendrick AM. Utilization Impact of Cost-Sharing Elimination for Preventive Care Services: A Rapid Review. Med Care Res Rev 2022; 79(2): 175–97.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.↵
    Srikanth K, Killelea A, Strumpf A, Corbin-Gutierrez E, Horn T, Mcmanus KA. Associated Costs Are a Barrier to HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Access in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 2022; 112(6): 834–8.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Baugher AR, Finlayson T, Lewis R, et al. Health care coverage and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among men who have sex with men living in 22 US cities with vs without Medicaid expansion, 2017. American Journal of Public Health 2021; 111(4): 743–51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Patel RR, Mena L, Nunn A, et al. Impact of insurance coverage on utilization of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention. PLoS One 2017; 12(5): e0178737.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    Whitfield TH, John SA, Rendina HJ, Grov C, Parsons JT. Why I quit pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)? A mixed-method study exploring reasons for PrEP discontinuation and potential re-initiation among gay and bisexual men. AIDS and Behavior 2018; 22(11): 3566–75.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    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). Archives of Sexual Behavior 2018; 47(7): 2109–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. 44.↵
    Molina J-M, Capitant C, Spire B, et al. On-demand preexposure prophylaxis in men at high risk for HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2237–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    Molina J-M, Charreau I, Spire B, et al. Efficacy, safety, and effect on sexual behaviour of on-demand pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV in men who have sex with men: an observational cohort study. The lancet HIV 2017; 4(9): e402–e10.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    Egan JE, Ho K, Stall R, et al. Feasibility of Short-Term PrEP Uptake for Men Who Have Sex With Men With Episodic Periods of Increased HIV Risk. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 2020; 84(5): 508–13.
    OpenUrl
  47. 47.↵
    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.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    Delany-Moretlwe S, Hughes JP, Bock P, et al. Cabotegravir for the prevention of HIV-1 in women: results from HPTN 084, a phase 3, randomised clinical trial. Lancet 2022; 399(10337): 1779–89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    Beymer MR, Gildner JL, Holloway IW, Landovitz RJ. Acceptability of injectable and on-demand pre-exposure prophylaxis among an online sample of young men who have sex with men in California. LGBT health 2018; 5(6): 341–9.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.
    Beymer MR, Holloway IW, Pulsipher C, Landovitz RJ. Current and future PrEP medications and modalities: On-demand, injectables, and topicals. Current hiv/aids Reports 2019; 16(4): 349–58.
    OpenUrl
  51. 51.
    Kerrigan D, Mantsios A, Grant R, et al. Expanding the menu of HIV prevention options: a qualitative study of experiences with long-acting injectable cabotegravir as PrEP in the context of a phase II trial in the United States. AIDS and Behavior 2018; 22(11): 3540–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. 52.↵
    Tolley EE, Zangeneh SZ, Chau G, et al. Acceptability of long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB LA) in HIV-uninfected individuals: HPTN 077. AIDS and Behavior 2020: 1–12.
  53. 53.↵
    Clement ME, Kofron R, Landovitz RJ. Long-acting injectable cabotegravir for the prevention of HIV infection. Current opinion in HIV and AIDS 2020; 15(1): 19–26.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Madden T, Mullersman JL, Peipert JF. The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203(2): 115 e1–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. 55.↵
    Schwartz J, Grimm J. Stigma communication surrounding PrEP: the experiences of a sample of men who have sex with men. Health communication 2019; 34(1): 84–90.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Qiao S, Zhou G, Li X. Disclosure of same-sex behaviors to health-care providers and uptake of HIV testing for men who have sex with men: a systematic review. American journal of men’s health 2018; 12(5): 1197–214.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    Kimball D, Rivera D, Gonzales IV M, Blashill AJ. Medical Mistrust and the PrEP Cascade Among Latino Sexual Minority Men. AIDS & Behavior 2020; 24(12).
  58. 58.↵
    Bogart LM, Takada S, Cunningham WE. Medical mistrust, discrimination, and the domestic HIV epidemic. HIV in US Communities of Color: Springer; 2021: 207–31.
  59. 59.↵
    Fisher CB, Fried AL, Macapagal K, Mustanski B. Patient–Provider Communication Barriers and Facilitators to HIV and STI Preventive Services for Adolescent MSM. AIDS and Behavior 2018; 22(10): 3417–28.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.↵
    Eaton LA, Driffin DD, Kegler C, et al. The role of stigma and medical mistrust in the routine health care engagement of black men who have sex with men. American journal of public health 2015; 105(2): e75–e82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  61. 61.↵
    John SA, Rendina HJ, Grov C, Parsons JT. Home-based pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) services for gay and bisexual men: an opportunity to address barriers to PrEP uptake and persistence. PLoS One 2017; 12(12): e0189794.
    OpenUrl
  62. 62.↵
    Evans KN, Hassan R, Townes A, Buchacz K, Smith DK. The Potential of Telecommunication Technology to Address Racial/Ethnic Disparities in HIV PrEP Awareness, Uptake, Adherence, and Persistence in Care: A Review. AIDS and Behavior 2022; 26(12): 3878–88.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted May 31, 2024.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Preference heterogeneity for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis care among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in the United States: a large discrete choice experiment
Viraj V. Patel, Eli Andrade, Rebecca Zimba, Chloe Mirzayi, Chenshu Zhang, Michael Kharfen, Zoe Edelstein, Anthony Freeman, Rupali Doshi, Denis Nash, Christian Grov
medRxiv 2024.05.30.24308102; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.30.24308102
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area