Intersecting Sexual Behavior and Gender Identity Stigmas Among Transgender Women in the United States: Burden and Associations with Sexual Health

HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis programme preferences among sexually active HIV-negative transgender and gender diverse adults in the United States: a conjoint analysis

INTRODUCTION

Current implementation efforts have failed to achieve equitable HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) provision for transgender and gender-diverse (trans) populations. We conducted a choice-based conjoint analysis to measure preferences for key attributes of hypothetical PrEP delivery programmes among a diverse online sample predominantly comprised of transmasculine and nonbinary individuals in the United States.

METHODS

Between April 2022 and June 2022, a national online survey with an embedded conjoint analysis experiment was conducted among 304 trans individuals aged ≥18 years in the United States to assess five PrEP programme attributes: out-of-pocket cost; dispensing venue; frequency of visits for PrEP-related care; travel time to PrEP provider; and ability to bundle PrEP-related care with gender-affirming hormone therapy services. Participants responded to five questions, each of which presented two PrEP programme scenarios and one opt-out option per question and selected their preferred programme in each question. We used hierarchical Bayes estimation and multinomial logistic regression to measure part-worth utility scores for the total sample and by respondents' PrEP status.

RESULTS

The median age was 24 years (range 18-56); 75% were assigned female sex at birth; 54% identified as transmasculine; 32% as nonbinary; 14% as transfeminine. Out-of-pocket cost had the highest attribute importance score (44.3%), followed by the ability to bundle with gender-affirming hormone therapy services (18.7%). Minimal cost-sharing ($0 out-of-pocket cost) most positively influenced the attribute importance of cost (average conjoint part-worth utility coefficient of 2.5 [95% CI 2.4-2.6]). PrEP-experienced respondents preferred PrEP delivery in primary care settings (relative utility score 4.7); however, PrEP-naïve respondents preferred pharmacies (relative utility score 5.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Participants preferred programmes that offered PrEP services without cost-sharing and bundled with gender-affirming hormone therapy services. Bolstering federal regulations to cover PrEP services and prioritizing programmes to expand low-barrier PrEP provision are critical to achieving equitable PrEP provision. Community-engaged implementation research conducted by and in close collaboration with trans community stakeholders and researchers are needed to streamline the design of patient-centred PrEP programmes and develop implementation strategies that are salient to the diverse sexual health needs of trans patients.