Increasing prescription of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is imperative to ending the HIV epidemic in the United States. The objective of this review was to identify health care provider barriers to PrEP implementation. A systematic review was conducted in February 2019 using PubMed to identify barriers to PrEP prescribing practices in the United States. Targeted search terms surrounding PrEP and providers resulted in 222 original studies, 28 of which were ultimately included in our review, with data collected between 2011 and 2018. Six themes were identified across reviewed studies: (i) a lack of PrEP knowledge, (ii) the presence of the Purview Paradox, which refers to discordance in beliefs between HIV specialists and primary care providers on who should prescribe PrEP, (iii) concerns about PrEP costs, (iv) concerns about behavioral and health consequences, (v) interpersonal stigma, and (vi) concerns about patient adherence. A majority of providers were lacking knowledge regarding PrEP, resulting in discomfort in prescribing PrEP, or limited awareness and understanding of PrEP clinical guidelines. Discrepant opinions were identified regarding whether PrEP was best managed within primary care or specialty clinics. Other barriers included concerns about cost, patient adherence, and follow-up maintenance care. Finally, concerns about risk compensation and discomfort discussing sexual activities with patients who would benefit most from PrEP were apparent. Additional work is needed to prepare providers to prescribe and manage patients on PrEP, optimize PrEP delivery, and reduce provider bias. Future research is needed to identify providers' attitudes and beliefs regarding innovations in PrEP dosing, task shifting, and novel strategies for PrEP care.

Non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) has been clinically recommended since 2005. HIV providers and non-HIV providers (n = 480) practicing within above-average HIV prevalence ZIP codes of the 10 U.S. cities with greatest overall HIV prevalence participated in a crosssectional survey between July 2014 and May 2015. Providers were asked about their awareness of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and nPEP prescribing experience for patients with potential sexual exposures to HIV, which we coded into a PEP prescribing cascade with three categories: 1) PEP unaware, 2) PEP aware, no nPEP prescribing experience, and 3) nPEP prescribing experience. Overall, 12.5% were unaware of PEP, 43.5% were aware but hadn't prescribed nPEP, and 44.0% had prescribed nPEP for potential sexual exposures to HIV. Fewer providers practicing in the U.S. South had ever prescribed nPEP compared to providers in other regions (χ 2 =39.91, p<0.001). HIV providers, compared to non-HIV providers, were more likely to be classified in the nPEP prescription group compared to the PEP aware without nPEP prescription group (RRR=2.96, p<0.001). PrEP prescribers, compared to those PrEP unaware, were more likely to be classified in the nPEP prescription group compared to PEP aware without nPEP prescription group (RRR=12.49, p<0.001).

Intramuscular cabotegravir for long-acting injectable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (i.e., LAI-PrEP) was approved by the U.S. FDA in 2021. We sought to explore LAI-PrEP decision-making among a nationwide sample of young sexual minority men (YSMM) 17–24 years old. In 2020, HIV-negative/unknown YSMM (n = 41) who met CDC criteria for PrEP were recruited online to participate in synchronous online focus groups eliciting preferences and opinions about LAI-PrEP, as well as the impact of a potential self-administered option. Data were analyzed using inductive and deductive thematic analysis with constant comparison. Preferences and decision-making about LAI-PrEP varied widely among YSMM, with participants frequently comparing LAI-PrEP to oral PrEP regimens. We identified five key themes related to LAI-PrEP decision-making including concerns about adherence to PrEP dosing and clinic appointments, awareness and knowledge of PrEP safety and efficacy data, comfort with needles, minimizing PrEP stigma, and considerations of self-administration. YSMM acknowledged more PrEP options as beneficial to supporting uptake and persistence.

Introduction: A large percentage of people who inject drugs (PWID) are living with HIV. Yet, rates of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among PWID remain low. Stigma surrounding substance use and PWID have been identified as potential barriers to PrEP. This study examined healthcare providers’ concerns regarding PWID and willingness to prescribe PrEP to PWID. Methods: An online, cross-sectional survey of a diverse group of healthcare providers in the 10 U.S. cities with the greatest HIV prevalence was conducted between July 2014 and May 2015. Participants responded to a patient vignette of a PWID and asked to indicate whether the patient would be a candidate for PrEP and why via free-response text. Descriptive statistics are reported using frequency measures. Bivariate analyses were conducted using chi-squared comparisons and logistical regression. Results: Survey data from 480 providers were included in analyses. Of the 480 responses, 85.5% were classified as PrEP aware, while 14.2% were PrEP unaware. Additionally, 82.6% indicated the patient would be a good candidate for PrEP, 4.4% believed the patient was not a good candidate for PrEP, and 13% were unsure. Among those who were unsure or would not prescribe PrEP (n = 84), open-ended responses indicated lack of knowledge (42.9%), concern about adherence (27.4%), concern about cost (4.8%), and bias (7.1%) as the primary reasons. Conclusions: Although the majority of providers in this study did not demonstrate bias against PWID, our study found that limited PrEP knowledge and bias are barriers to PrEP prescription among PWID for some providers. Interventions are needed that increase PrEP awareness of CDC guidelines and reduce implicit bias among providers.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract