Abstract

Less than 10 percent of the more than one million people vulnerable to HIV are using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Practitioners are critical to ensuring the delivery of PrEP across care settings. In this study, we target a group of prescribers focused on providing HIV care and seeking up-to-date information about HIV. We assessed their experiences prescribing PrEP, whether these experiences differed by clinical specialty, and examined associations between willingness to prescribe PrEP as a "best first step" and different hypothetical prescribing scenarios. Between March and May 2015, we circulated a paper survey to 954 participants ((652 of whom met our inclusion criteria of being independent prescribers and 519 of those (80%) responded to the survey)) at continuing medical education advanced-level HIV courses in five locations across the US on practitioner practices and preferences of PrEP. We employed multivariable logistic regression analysis for binary and collapsed ordinal outcomes. Among this highly motivated group of practitioners, only 54% reported ever prescribing PrEP. Internal medicine practitioners were 1.6 times more likely than infectious disease practitioners to have prescribed PrEP (95% CI: 0.99-2.60, p = .0524) and age, years of training, and sex were significantly associated with prescribing experience. Based on clinical vignettes describing different hypothetical prescribing scenarios, practitioners who viewed PrEP as the first clinical step for persons who inject drugs (PWID) were twice as likely to have also considered PrEP as the first clinical option for safer conception, and vice-a-versa (95% CI: 1.4-3.2, p < .001). Practitioners considering PrEP as the first preventive option for MSM were nearly six times as likely to also consider PrEP as the first clinical step for PWID, and vice-a-versa (95% CI: 2.28-13.56, p = .0002). Our findings indicate that even among a subset of HIV-focused practitioners, PrEP prescribing is not routine. This group of practitioners could be an optimal group to engage individuals that could most benefit from PrEP.

Highlights

  • HIV prevention in the US has received renewed political attention with heightened goals to eradicate the virus by 2030 [1]

  • Our findings indicate that even among a subset of HIV-focused practitioners, preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) prescribing is not routine

  • This group of practitioners could be an optimal group to engage individuals that could most benefit from PrEP

Read more

Summary

Introduction

HIV prevention in the US has received renewed political attention with heightened goals to eradicate the virus by 2030 [1]. Only 8 percent of the estimated 1.2 million people vulnerable to HIV are using PrEP [2, 4, 5]. Structural barriers, such as practitioner prescribing practices and comfort with PrEP, could be important influences on PrEP implementation across clinical settings. We assessed their experiences prescribing PrEP, whether these experiences differed by clinical specialty, and examined associations between willingness to prescribe PrEP as a “best first step” and different hypothetical prescribing scenarios. We employed multivariable logistic regression analysis for binary and collapsed ordinal outcomes

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call