With the emergence of daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine-based pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use in Canada, questions have emerged concerning the impacts of this HIV prevention tool on gay men's social and sexual lives. We conducted small focus groups and individual qualitative interviews with 16 gay men in Toronto who were part of the ‘first wave’ of Canadian PrEP users. Participants were on PrEP for at least one year as part of a demonstration project (November 2014–June 2016). These participants accessed PrEP before regulatory approval by Health Canada in February 2016. The mean age of participants was 37.6 years (SD 11.02); 94% completed secondary education, and 69% were white. Sex-stigma emerged as a complex theme in men's accounts of PrEP use across three overlapping domains: (1) PrEP-related stigma, including discussions of concealment and stigma from friends, family, and sexual partners, (2) PrEP as a perceived tool for combating HIV-related stigma, where some men said that they no longer discussed HIV status with sexual partners, and (3) PrEP as illuminating structural stigma, where it was attributed to unmasking stigma related to sex and sexuality. For some participants, PrEP has allowed for liberating sex and a self-described return to normalcy—normal, exciting, pleasurable sex that was no longer reliant on condom use. Paradoxically, some men said that PrEP use both led them to experience stigmatizing reactions within their social and sexual networks, while also helping to remove stigma, shame, and fear related to HIV, sexuality, and sex with gay men living with HIV.

ObjectivesPharmaceutical industry involvement in medical education, research and clinical practice can lead to conflicts of interest. Within this context, this study examined how the ‘Suboxone Education Programme’, developed and delivered by a pharmaceutical company as part of a federally regulated risk management program, was presented as a solution to various kinds of risks relating to opioid use in public documents from medical institutions across Canada.SettingThese documents were issued during the Canadian opioid crisis, a time when the involvement of industry in health policy was being widely questioned given industry’s role in driving the overprescribing of opioid analgesics and contributing to population-level harms.DesignA critical discourse analysis of 69 documents collected between July 2020 and May 2021 referencing the Suboxone Education Program spanning 13 years (2007–2021) from medical, nursing and pharmacy institutions sourced from every Canadian province and territory. Discursive themes were identified through iterative and duplicate analyses using a semistructured data extraction instrument.ResultsDocuments characterised the Programme as addressing iatrogenic risks from overprescribing opioid analgesics, environmental risks from a toxic street drug supply and pharmacological risks relating to the dominant therapeutic alternative of methadone. The programme was identified as being able to address these risks by providing mechanisms to surveil healthcare professionals and to facilitate the prescribing of Suboxone. Medical institutions legitimised the Suboxone Education Programme by lending their regulatory, epidemiological and professional authority.ConclusionsAddressing risk is considered as a central, moral responsibility of contemporary healthcare services. In this case, moral imperatives to address opioid crisis-related risks overrode other ethical concerns regarding conflicts of interest between industry and public welfare. Failing to address these conflicts potentially imperils efforts of mitigating population health harms by propagating an important driving force of the opioid crisis.

No abstract