Optimizing access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an evidence-based HIV prevention resource, requires expanding healthcare providers’ adoption of PrEP into clinical practice. This qualitative study explored PrEP providers’ firsthand experiences relative to six commonly-cited barriers to prescription—financial coverage, implementation logistics, eligibility determination, adherence concerns, side effects, and anticipated behavior change (risk compensation)—as well as their recommendations for training PrEP-inexperienced providers. U.S.-based PrEP providers were recruited via direct outreach and referral from colleagues and other participants (2014–2015). One-on-one interviews were conducted in person or by phone, transcribed, and analyzed. The sample (n = 18) primarily practiced in the Northeastern (67%) or Southern (22%) U.S. Nearly all (94%) were medical doctors (MDs), most of whom self-identified as infectious disease specialists. Prior experience prescribing PrEP ranged from 2 to 325 patients. Overall, providers reported favorable experiences with PrEP implementation and indicated that commonly anticipated problems were minimal or manageable. PrEP was covered via insurance or other programs for most patients; however, pre-authorization requirements, laboratory/service provision costs, and high deductibles sometimes presented challenges. Various models of PrEP care and coordination with other providers were utilized, with several providers highlighting the value of clinical staff support. Eligibility was determined through joint decision-making with patients; CDC guidelines were commonly referenced but not considered absolute. Patient adherence was variable, with particularly strong adherence noted among patients who had actively sought PrEP (self-referred). Providers observed minimal adverse effects or increases in risk behavior. However, they identified several barriers with respect to accessing and engaging PrEP candidates. Providers offered a wide range of suggestions regarding content, strategy, and logistics surrounding PrEP training, highlighting sexual history-taking and sexual minority competence as areas to prioritize. These insights from early-adopting PrEP providers may facilitate adoption of PrEP into clinical practice by PrEP-inexperienced providers, thereby improving access for individuals at risk for HIV.

Background This study examined the time-variant association between daily minority stress and daily affect among gay and bisexual men. Tests of time-lagged associations allow for a stronger causal examination of minority stress-affect associations compared with static assessments. Multilevel modeling allows for comparison of associations between minority stress and daily affect when minority stress is modeled as a between-person factor and a within-person time-fluctuating state. Methods 371 gay and bisexual men in New York City completed a 30-day daily diary, recording daily experiences of minority stress and positive affect (PA), negative affect (NA), and anxious affect (AA). Multilevel analyses examined associations between minority stress and affect in both same-day and time-lagged analyses, with minority stress assessed as both a between-person factor and a within-person state. Results Daily minority stress, modeled as both a between-person and within-person construct, significantly predicted lower PA and higher NA and AA. Daily minority stress also predicted lower subsequent-day PA and higher subsequent-day NA and AA. Limitations Self-report assessments and the unique sample may limit generalizability of this study. Conclusions The time-variant association between sexual minority stress and affect found here substantiates the basic tenet of minority stress theory with a fine-grained analysis of gay and bisexual men’s daily experience. Time-lagged effects suggest a potentially causal pathway between minority stress as a social determinant of mood and anxiety disorder symptoms among gay and bisexual men. When modeled as both a between-person factor and within-person state, minority stress demonstrated expected patterns with affect.

Efforts to identify and address social inequities in HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) access are urgently needed. We investigated early-adopting PrEP prescribers' beliefs about how stigma contributes to PrEP access disparities in health care and explored potential intervention strategies within the context of PrEP service delivery. US-based PrEP prescribers were recruited through professional networks and participant referrals. Qualitative interviews were conducted, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Participants (n = 18) were primarily male (72%); white (39%) or Asian (33%); and heterosexual (56%). Most practiced in the Northeastern (67%) or Southern (22%) United States; were physicians (94%); and specialized in HIV/infectious disease (89%). Participants described multiple forms of structural and interpersonal stigma impeding PrEP access. The requirement that PrEP be prescribed was a perceived deterrent for populations with medical mistrust and/or low health literacy. Practice norms such as discussing PrEP only in response to patient requests were seen as favoring more privileged groups. When probed about personally held biases, age-related stereotypes were the most readily acknowledged, including assumptions about older adults being sexually inactive and uncomfortable discussing sex. Participants criticized providers who chose not to prescribe PrEP within their clinical practice, particularly those whose decision reflected personal values related to condomless sex or discomfort communicating about sex with their patients. Suggested solutions included standardizing PrEP service delivery across patients and increasing cultural competence training. These early insights from a select sample of earlyadopting providers illuminate mechanisms through which stigma could compromise PrEP access for key populations and corresponding points of intervention within the health care system.

Background Young gay and bisexual men disproportionately experience depression, anxiety, and substance use problems and are among the highest risk group for HIV infection in the U.S. Diverse methods locate the source of these health disparities in young gay and bisexual men’s exposure to minority stress. In fact, minority stress, psychiatric morbidity, substance use, and HIV risk fuel each other, forming a synergistic threat to young gay and bisexual men’s health. Yet no known intervention addresses minority stress to improve mental health, substance use problems, or their joint impact on HIV risk in this population. This paper describes the design of a study to test the efficacy of such an intervention, called ESTEEM (Effective Skills to Empower Effective Men), a 10-session skills-building intervention designed to reduce young gay and bisexual men’s co-occurring health risks by addressing the underlying cognitive, affective, and behavioral pathways through which minority stress impairs health. Methods This study, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, is a three-arm randomized controlled trial to examine (1) the efficacy of ESTEEM compared to community mental health treatment and HIV counseling and testing and (2) whether ESTEEM works through its hypothesized cognitive, affective, and behavioral minority stress processes. Our primary outcome, measured 8 months after baseline, is condomless anal sex in the absence of PrEP or known undetectable viral load of HIV+ primary partners. Secondary outcomes include depression, anxiety, substance use, sexual compulsivity, and PrEP uptake, also measured 8 months after baseline. Discussion Delivering specific stand-alone treatments for specific mental, behavioral, and sexual health problems represents the current state of evidence-based practice. However, dissemination and implementation of this one treatment-one problem approach has not been ideal. A single intervention that reduces young gay and bisexual men’s depression, anxiety, substance use, and HIV risk by reducing the common minority stress pathways across these problems would represent an efficient, cost-effective alternative to currently isolated approaches, and holds great promise for reducing sexual orientation health disparities among young men. Trial registration Registered October 10, 2016 to ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02929069 .

Findings offer a comprehensive picture of young gay and bisexual male migrants' experiences and health risks and help build a theory of high-risk migration. Results can inform structural- and individual-level interventions to support the health of this sizeable and vulnerable segment of the urban population.

Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and evidence that most PrEP users do not engage in risk compensation (i.e., increased risk behavior due to a perceived decrease in HIV susceptibility), some healthcare providers report patient risk compensation to be a deterrent to prescribing PrEP. Overcoming this barrier is essential to supporting PrEP access and uptake among people at risk for HIV. To inform such efforts, this qualitative study explored PrEP-related risk compensation attitudes among providers with firsthand experience prescribing PrEP. US-based PrEP providers (n = 18), most of whom were HIV specialists, were recruited through direct outreach and referral from colleagues and other participants. Individual 90-min semistructured interviews were conducted by phone or in person from September 2014 through February 2015, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Three attitudinal themes emerged: (1) providers' role is to support patients in making informed decisions, (2) risk behavior while taking PrEP does not fully offset PrEP's protective benefit (i.e., PrEP confers net protection, even with added behavioral risk), and (3) PrEP-related risk compensation is unduly stigmatized within and beyond the healthcare community. Participants were critical of other healthcare providers' negative judgment of patients and reluctance to prescribe PrEP due to anticipated risk compensation. Several providers also acknowledged an evolution in their thinking from initial ambivalence toward greater acceptance of PrEP and PrEP-related behavior change. PrEP providers' insights about risk compensation may help to address unsubstantiated concerns about PrEP-related risk compensation and challenge the acceptability of withholding PrEP on these grounds.

Social–sexual networking technologies have been reported to yield both psychosocial benefits and sexual risks for gay and bisexual men, yet little research has explored how technology interacts with the social–geographical environment to shape the health of gay and bisexual men in the relatively understudied environment of small cities. This article draws on 29 semistructured interviews examining the use of social–sexual networking technologies among racially diverse gay and bisexual men in two small cities. Questions probed participants’ use of technology to meet sexual partners, engagement in the gay community, and the role of virtual and nonvirtual spaces in relation to health. Findings suggest that social networking technologies can help men navigate the challenges of small cities, including small and insular gay communities, lack of dedicated gay spaces, and sexual minority stigma. However, participants also describe declines in gay community visibility and cohesion, which they attribute to technology use. The article concludes by discussing the intersections of virtual and physical space in small cities as sites for the production of health and illness.

Recent research has examined how gay and bisexual men experience and navigate the variations in sexual minority stigma that exist across geographic contexts, with implications for their health. We extend this literature on stigma, mobility, and health by considering the unique and understudied setting of the small city. Drawing on semi-structured interviews (n = 29) conducted in two small US cities (New Haven and Hartford), we find that these small cities serve as both destinations and points of departure for gay and bisexual men in the context of stigma. New Haven and Hartford attracted gay and bisexual men from surrounding suburbs where sexual minority stigma was more prevalent and where there were fewer spaces and opportunities for gay life. Conversely, participants noted that these small cities did not contain the same identity affirming communities as urban gay enclaves, thus motivating movement from small cities to larger ones. Our data suggest these forms of mobility may mitigate stigma, but may also produce sexual health risks, thus drawing attention to small cities as uniquely important sites for HIV prevention. Furthermore, our analysis contributes to an understanding of how place, stigma and mobility can intersect to generate spatially distinct experiences of stigmatised identities and related health consequences.