Original Article

Preexposure Prophylaxis for HIV Infection: Healthcare Providers’ Knowledge, Perception, and Willingness to Adopt Future Implementation in the Southern US

Authors: Avnish Tripathi, MD, MPH, Chinelo Ogbuanu, MD, PhD, Mauda Monger, MPH, James J. Gibson, MD, MPH, Wayne A. Duffus, MD, PhD

Abstract

Background: Understanding providers’ perspective on preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) would facilitate planning for future implementation.


Methods: A survey of care providers from sexually transmitted disease and family planning clinics in South Carolina and Mississippi was conducted to assess their knowledge, perception, and willingness to adopt PrEP. Multivariable logistic and general linear regression with inverse propensity score treatment weights were used for analyses.


Results: Survey response rate was 360/480 (75%). Median age was 46.9 years and a majority were women (279 [78%]), non-Hispanic white (277 [78%]), nonphysicians (254 [71%]), and public health care providers (223 [62%]). Knowledge about PrEP was higher among physicians compared with nonphysicians (P = 0.001); nonpublic health care providers compared with public health care providers (P = 0.023), and non-Hispanic whites compared with non-Hispanic blacks (P = 0.034). The majority of the providers were concerned about the safety, efficacy, and cost of PrEP. Providers’ perceptions about PrEP were significantly associated with their sociodemographic and occupational characteristics. The willingness to prescribe PrEP was more likely with higher PrEP knowledge scores (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 14.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.21–69.61), older age (aOR 1.14; 95% CI 1.01–1.29), and in those who agreed that “PrEP would empower women” (aOR 2.90; 95% CI 1.28–6.61); and was less likely for “other” race/ethnicity versus white (aOR 0.23; 95% CI 0.07–0.76) and in those who agreed that “PrEP, if not effective, could lead to higher HIV transmission” (aOR 0.45; 95% CI 0.27–0.75).


Conclusions: To improve the acceptance of PrEP among providers, there is a need to develop tailored education/training programs to alleviate their concerns about the safety and efficacy of PrEP.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Kaplan JE, Benson C, Holmes KH, et al. Guidelines for prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections in HIV-infected adults and adolescents: recommendations from CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. MMWR Recomm Rep 2009; 58: 1–207; quiz CE1-4.
 
2. Hammer SM, Eron JJ Jr, Reiss P, et al. Antiretroviral treatment of adult HIV infection: 2008 recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA panel. JAMA 2008; 300: 555–570.
 
3. Lampe MA, Smith DK, Anderson GJ, et al. Achieving safe conception in HIV-discordant couples: the potential role of oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204: 488.e1–488.e8.
 
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Goals and objectives of the CDC HIV prevention strategic plan: extended through 2010. Short-term milestone 3, objective 1. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/reports/psp/goal_objective.htm. Accessed December 28, 2010.
 
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV and AIDS in the United States. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm. Accessed July 20, 2010.
 
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim guidance: preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in men who have sex with men. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60: 65–68.
 
7. Burns DN, Dieffenbach CW, Vermund SH. Rethinking prevention of HIV type 1 infection. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51: 725–731.
 
8. Gostin LO, Kim SC. Ethical allocation of preexposure HIV prophylaxis. JAMA 2011; 305: 191–192.
 
9. Ramjee G, Kamali A, McCormack S. The last decade of microbicide clinical trials in Africa: from hypothesis to facts. AIDS 2010; 24 (4 suppl): S40–S49.
 
10. Michael NL. Oral preexposure prophylaxis for HIV—another arrow in the quiver? N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 2663–2665.
 
11. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, et al. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med 2005; 2: e298.
 
12. Robb ML. Failure of the Merck HIV vaccine: an uncertain step forward. Lancet 2008; 372: 1857–1858.
 
13. Abdool Karim Q, Abdool Karim SS, Frohlich JA, et al. Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir gel, an antiretroviral microbicide, for the prevention of HIV infection in women. Science 2010; 329: 1168.
 
14. Fleming PL, Lansky A, Lee LM, et al. The epidemiology of HIV/AIDS in women in the southern United States. Sex Transm Dis 2006; 33: S32–S38.
 
15. AVAC. PrEP resources. http://www.avac.org/ht/d/sp/i/354/pid/354. Accessed May 12, 2011.
 
16. Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 2587–2599.
 
17. Brooks RA, Kaplan RL, Lieber E, et al. Motivators, concerns, and barriers to adoption of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among gay and bisexual men in HIV-serodiscordant male relationships. AIDS Care 2011; 23: 1136–1145.
 
18. Voetsch AC, Heffelfinger JD, Begley EB, et al. Knowledge and use of preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis among attendees of Minority Gay Pride events, 2005 through 2006. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007; 46: 378–380.
 
19. Whiteside YO, Harris T, Scanlon C, et al. Self-perceived risk of HIV infection and attitudes about preexposure prophylaxis among sexually transmitted disease clinic attendees in South Carolina. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2011; 25: 365–370.
 
20. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 1984; 79: 516–524.
 
21. Mayer KH, Safren SA, Gordon CM. HIV care providers and prevention: opportunities and challenges. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004; 37 (2 suppl): S130–S132.
 
22. Lindley LL, Coleman JD, Gaddist BW, et al. Informing faith-based HIV/AIDS interventions: HIV-related knowledge and stigmatizing attitudes at Project F.A.I.T.H. churches in South Carolina. Public Health Rep 2010; 125 (1 suppl): 12–20.
 
23. Kim SC, Becker S, Dieffenbach C, et al. Planning for pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV transmission: challenges and opportunities. J Int AIDS Soc 2010; 13: 24.
 
24. Paxton LA, Hope T, Jaffe HW. Pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection: what if it works? Lancet 2007; 370: 89–93.
 
25. Mimiaga MJ, Case P, Johnson CV, et al. Preexposure antiretroviral prophylaxis attitudes in high-risk Boston area men who report having sex with men: limited knowledge and experience but potential for increased utilization after education. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2009; 50: 77–83.
 
26. Golub SA, Kowalczyk W, Weinberger CL, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis and predicted condom use among high-risk men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2010; 54: 548–555.
 
27. Martin JN, Roland ME, Neilands TB, et al. Use of postexposure prophylaxis against HIV infection following sexual exposure does not lead to increases in high-risk behavior. AIDS 2004; 18: 787–792.
 
28. Myers GM, Mayer KH. Oral preexposure anti-HIV prophylaxis for high-risk U.S. populations: current considerations in light of new findings. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2011; 25: 63–71.
 
29. Grohskopf L, Gvetadze R, Pathak S, et al. Preliminary analysis of biomedical data from the phase II clinical safety trial of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for HIV-1 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among U.S. men who have sex with men (MSM). http://pag.aids2010.org/Abstracts.aspx?AID=17777. Accessed February 6, 2012.
 
30. García-Lerma JG, Otten RA, Qari SH, et al. Prevention of rectal SHIV transmission in macaques by daily or intermittent prophylaxis with emtricitabine and tenofovir. PLoS Med 2008; 5: e28.
 
31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Fact Sheets. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention: planning for potential implementation in the U.S. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/index.htm#Prevention. Accessed May 21, 2011.