Pre-exposure prophylaxis in the era of emerging methods for men who have sex with men in the USA: the HIV Prevention Cycle of Care model

Understanding Preferences for Visualized New and Future HIV Prevention Products Among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men in the Southern United States: A Mixed-Methods Study

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are vulnerable to HIV infection. Although daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prevents HIV among MSM, its usage remains low. We conducted virtual in-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus groups (FGs) with Black, Hispanic/Latino, and White MSM consisting of current PrEP users and those aware of but not currently using PrEP. We delved into their preferences regarding six emerging PrEP products: a weekly oral pill, event-driven oral pills, anal douche/enema, anal suppository, long-acting injection, and a skin implant. Our mixed methods analysis involved inductive content analysis of transcripts for thematic identification and calculations of preferences. Among the sample (n = 98), the weekly oral pill emerged as the favored option among both PrEP Users and PrEP Aware IDI participants. Ranking exercises during FGs also corroborated this preference, with the weekly oral pill being most preferred. However, PrEP Users in FGs leaned toward the long-acting injectable. Conversely, the anal suppository and douche/enema were the least preferred products. Overall, participants were open to emerging PrEP products and valued flexibility but expressed concerns about limited protection for products designed solely for receptive sex. Public health practitioners should tailor recommendations based on individuals' current sexual behaviors and long-term vulnerability to infection.

Low Self-Perceived Need for PrEP and Behavioral Indications of MSM Who Recently Refused Daily PrEP: A Mixed Methods Study in Three U.S. Cities

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) reduces sexual risk for HIV transmission by 99% when used appropriately, but remains underutilized among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM). In this mixed-method study, we describe reasons for PrEP refusal associated with low self-perceived need for PrEP among MSM who recently declined daily oral PrEP when offered by a provider. Data are from a quantitative behavioral survey of MSM (N = 93) living in Atlanta, Chicago, and Raleigh-Durham, who also either responded to an in-depth interview (n = 51) or participated in one of 12 focus groups (n = 42). Themes of low self-perceived need for PrEP were: low self-perceived risk for HIV acquisition (33% of respondents); confidence in remaining HIV-negative (35%); using condoms (81%); limiting number of partners and choosing partners carefully (48%); asking partners about their HIV status before having sex (45%); engaging in safer sexual positions or oral sex (28%); being in a monogamous relationship or exclusivity with one partner (26%); and regular HIV testing (18%). Low self-perceived risk for HIV acquisition and high confidence in other prevention strategies were important factors related to low self-perceived need in MSM refusing daily oral PrEP when offered. Providers should continue to discuss the benefits of PrEP as a safe and highly effective option for HIV prevention.

Message Framing Strategies to Promote the Uptake of PrEP: Results from Formative Research with Diverse Adult Populations in the United States

There are no evidence-based recommendations for communicating about pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as part of a broader HIV-prevention messaging approach. To inform future message development related to PrEP uptake, we interviewed 235 individuals across ten locations in the U.S. to explore their understanding and perceptions of draft HIV prevention messages and assess their overall preferences for a broad or PrEP-focused messaging approach. Participants responded favorably to and related to both draft messages. Participants who were not aware of PrEP were more likely to say the broad HIV-prevention message was personally relevant than those aware of PrEP. There were no significant differences in perceived personal relevance for the PrEP-focused message. Qualitative findings suggest that HIV prevention messages should use specific well-defined terms, include links to additional information, and use choice-enhancing language that emphasizes personal agency and frames the call to action as an informed decision among an array of effective prevention options.