Barriers to uptake and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among communities most affected by HIV in the UK: findings from a qualitative study in Scotland. Issue 11 (20th November 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Young, Ingrid; Flowers, Paul; McDaid, Lisa M
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 4:Issue 11(2014)
• Publication Date: 2014-11-20
• Subjects: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH -- PUBLIC HEALTH; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005717
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: To explore the acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among gay, bisexual and men who have sex with men (MSM) and migrant African communities in Scotland, UK. Design: Consecutive mixed qualitative methods consisting of focus groups (FGs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) explored PrEP acceptability. Data were digitally recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically to identify anticipated and emerging themes. Setting: Participants were recruited through community sexual health and outreach support services, and from non-sexual health settings across Scotland. Participants: Inclusion criteria included identification as either MSM and/or from migrant African communities; 18 years and older; living in Scotland at the time of participation. 7 FGs were conducted (n=33): 5 with MSM (n=22) and 2 mixed-sex groups with African participants (n=11, women=8), aged 18–75 years. 34 IDIs were conducted with MSM (n=20) and African participants (n=14, women=10), aged 19–60 years. The sample included participants who were HIV-positive and HIV-negative or untested (HIV-positive FG participants, n=22; HIV-positive IDI participants, n=17). Results: Understandings of PrEP effectiveness and concerns about maintaining regular adherence were identified as barriers to potential PrEP uptake and use. Low perception of HIV risk due to existing risk management strategies meant few participants saw themselves as PrEP candidates. Participants identified risk of other sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy as a concern which PrEP did not address for either themselves or their sexual partners. PrEP emerged as a contentious issue because of the potentially negative implications it had for HIV prevention. Many participants viewed PrEP as problematic because they perceived that others would stop using condoms if PrEP was to become available. Conclusions: PrEP implementation needs to identify appropriate communication methods in the context of diverse HIV literacy; address risk-reduction concerns and; demonstrate how PrEP can be part of a safe and comprehensive risk management strategy.