Search

Introduction: Stigma is a well‐known barrier to HIV testing and treatment and is an emerging barrier to pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use. To guide future research, measurement and interventions, we developed a conceptual framework for PrEP stigma among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) in sub‐Saharan Africa, a priority population for PrEP. Methods: A literature review, expert consultations and focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted to adapt the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework, describing the stigmatization process nested within the socio‐ecological framework. We reviewed all articles on PrEP stigma and on HIV, contraceptive or sexuality stigma among AGYW from 2009 to 2019. Expert consultations were conducted with 10 stigma or PrEP researchers and two Kenyan youth advisory boards to revise the framework. Finally, FGDs were conducted with AGYW PrEP users (4 FGDs; n = 20) and key influencers (14 FGDs; n = 72) in Kenya with the help of a Youth Research Team who aided in FGD conduct and results interpretation. Results from each phase were reviewed and the framework was updated to incorporate new and divergent findings. This was validated against an updated literature search from 2020 to 2023. Results: The conceptual framework identifies potential drivers, facilitators and manifestations of PrEP stigma, its outcomes and health impacts, and relevant intersecting stigmas. The main findings include: (1) PrEP stigma is driven by HIV, gender and sexuality stigmas, and low PrEP community awareness. (2) Stigma is facilitated by factors at multiple levels: policy (e.g. targeting of PrEP to high‐risk populations), health systems (e.g. youth‐friendly service availability), community (e.g. social capital) and individual (e.g. empowerment). (3) Similar to other stigmas, manifestations include labelling, violence and shame. (4) PrEP stigma results in decreased access to and acceptability of PrEP, limited social support and community resistance, which can impact mental health and decrease PrEP uptake and adherence. (5) Stigma may engender resilience by motivating AGYW to think of PrEP as an exercise in personal agency. Conclusions: Our PrEP stigma conceptual framework highlights potential intervention targets at multiple levels in the stigmatization process. Its adoption would enable researchers to develop standardized measures and compare stigma across timepoints and populations as well as design and evaluate interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Oral pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has the potential to reduce HIV acquisition among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) in sub‐Saharan Africa, a priority population for epidemic control. However, intimate partner violence (IPV) and low relationship power can create significant challenges to PrEP use. The Tu'Washindi intervention aimed to increase PrEP use by addressing relationship‐ and violence‐related barriers among AGYW enrolled in the DREAMS Initiative in Siaya County, Kenya. Methods: Our multi‐level, community‐based intervention was piloted in a cluster‐randomized controlled trial conducted at six DREAMS sites from April to December 2019 (NCT03938818). Three intervention components were delivered over 6 months: an eight‐session empowerment‐based support club, community sensitization targeted towards male partners and a couples' PrEP education event. Participants were ages 17–24, HIV negative and either eligible for, or already taking, PrEP. Over 6 months of follow‐up, we assessed IPV (months 3 and 6) and PrEP uptake and continuation (month 6) through interviewer‐administered questionnaires; PrEP adherence was assessed with Wisepill electronic monitoring devices. These outcomes were compared using adjusted Poisson and negative binomial regression models. Results: We enrolled 103 AGYW with median age of 22 years (IQR 20–23); one‐third were currently taking PrEP and 45% reported IPV in the past 3 months. Retention was 97% at month 6. Compared to the control arm, intervention arm participants were more likely to initiate PrEP, if not already using it at enrolment (52% vs. 24%, aRR 2.28, 95% CI 1.19–4.38, p = 0.01), and those taking PrEP had more days with device openings (25% of days vs. 13%, aRR 1.94, 95% CI 1.16–3.25, p = 0.01). Twenty percent of participants reported IPV during follow‐up. There were trends towards fewer IPV events (aIRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.27–1.62, p = 0.37) and fewer events resulting in injury (aIRR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–1.02, p = 0.05) in the intervention versus control arm. Conclusions: Tu'Washindi shows promise in promoting PrEP uptake and adherence among AGYW without concomitant increases in IPV; however, adherence was still suboptimal. Further research is needed to determine whether these gains translate to increases in the proportion of AGYW with protective levels of PrEP adherence and to evaluate the potential for the intervention to reduce IPV risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Young women in sub‐Saharan Africa account for two‐thirds of all new HIV infections and face high rates of unintended pregnancy. Multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs) are promising products under development that are designed to simultaneously prevent HIV and unintended pregnancy. Since MPTs will be used in the context of sexual relationships, ensuring acceptability and use requires understanding the role of male partners in MPT use decision‐making. Methods: This paper draws on qualitative data from 39 couples enrolled in the Microbicide Trials Network (MTN) 045 study, conducted in 2019–2020. Partners completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE), first separately and then jointly, to measure preferences for future MPT attributes and then completed a qualitative interview. We also draw on quantitative data from interviewer observation about who dominated the decision‐making process during the joint DCE. Content analysis was used to examine (1) how couples made decisions on existing non‐MPT HIV and pregnancy prevention products; (2) how couples made decisions on future ideal‐MPT product during the DCE; and (3) how these decision‐making processes varied by decision‐making dominance (10 male, 10 female and 19 equal) and interview type (19 joint and 20 separate). Results: Existing non‐MPT product decisions focused on trust between partners and product attributes, while future ideal‐MPT product decisions exclusively focused on product attributes. Across existing and future products, preferences for product attributes varied by gender. Male partners were most concerned with limiting side effects impacting sexual pleasure, female partners were most concerned with limiting side effects causing physical symptoms and both were concerned with the return to fertility. Across all dominance and interview types, couples reported making decisions together and female partners were often able to negotiate with male partners for their preferred product or set of product attributes. Conclusions: Research activities in this study provided an opportunity for couples to openly present their product attribute preferences to their partner, learn about their partner's attribute preferences, negotiate for their ideal set of attributes and ultimately choose attributes that benefited the couple without disempowering the female partner. Future research should focus on the utility of couple‐based decision‐making aids or similar tools for facilitating joint MPT decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Existing biomedical HIV prevention options, though highly effective, present substantial adherence challenges. End‐user input on early‐stage design of new HIV prevention approaches is critical to yielding products that achieve high uptake and adherence. The iPrevent Study examined youths' preferences for key attributes of long‐acting Pre‐Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP), with a focus on characteristics pertinent to product delivery alongside key modifiable product attributes. Methods: A discrete choice experiment was conducted with female and male youth aged 18 to 24 in two high‐density communities in Cape Town, South Africa during the period July 2017 to January 2019. Sexually active, PrEP‐naïve youth were recruited using population‐based sampling; targeted sampling was used to enrol men who have sex with men (MSM). In a series of nine questions, participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical products composed of five attributes (form, dosing frequency, access, pain, insertion site). We used a random‐parameters logit model to estimate preference weights and trade‐offs among product alternatives. We examined differences across three subgroups: females, men who have sex with only women (MSW) and MSM. Results: A total of 807 participants (401 female) were enrolled with a median age of 21 years. Males included 190 MSM. Most youth had tested for HIV (95%) and reported being HIV‐negative (91%). Across all groups, duration of effectiveness was the most important attribute, with strong preference for less frequent dosing. Injections were favoured over implants, though these preferences were strongest for females and MSM. Females preferred a product offered at a health clinic and disliked pharmacy access; all groups preferred the arm as the insertion site. Youth were willing to trade their preferred product form for longer duration. Conclusions: Youth indicated strong preferences for longer duration products. Each attribute nonetheless influenced preferences, offering insight into trade‐offs that inform long‐acting PrEP development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Antiretroviral (ARV)-based pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising new HIV prevention strategy. However, variable levels of adherence have yielded mixed results across several PrEP trials and populations. It is not clear how taking ARV - traditionally used for HIV treatment - is perceived and how that perception may affect the use of these products as preventives. We explored the views and experiences of VOICE participants, their male partners and community members regarding the use of ARV as PrEP in the VOICE trial and the implications of these shared meanings for adherence. Methods VOICE-C was a qualitative ancillary study conducted at the Johannesburg site of VOICE, a multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial testing tenofovir gel, oral tenofovir and oral Truvada® for HIV PrEP. We interviewed 102 randomly selected female VOICE participants, 22 male partners and 40 community members through in-depth interviews, serial ethnography, or focus group discussions. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, translated and coded thematically for analysis. Results The concept of ARV for prevention was understood to varying degrees across all study groups. A majority of VOICE participants understood that the products contained ARV, more so for the tablets than for the gel. Although participants knew they were HIV negative, ARV was associated with illness. Male partners and community members echoed these sentiments, highlighting confusion between treatment and prevention. Concerned that they would be mistakenly identified as HIV positive, VOICE participants often concealed use of or hid their study products. This occasionally led to relationship conflicts or early trial termination. HIV stigma and its association with ARV, especially the tablets, was articulated in rumour and gossip in the community, the workplace and the household. Although ARV were recognised as potent and beneficial medications, transforming the AIDS body from sickness to health, they were regarded as potentially harmful for those uninfected. Conclusions VOICE participants and others in the trial community struggled to conceptualise the idea of using ARV for prevention. This possibly influenced willingness to adopt ARV-based prevention in the VOICE clinical trial. Greater investments should be made to increase community understanding of ARV for prevention and to mitigate pervasive HIV stigma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Antiretroviral (ARV)-based pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising new HIV prevention strategy. However, variable levels of adherence have yielded mixed results across several PrEP trials and populations. It is not clear how taking ARV - traditionally used for HIV treatment - is perceived and how that perception may affect the use of these products as preventives. We explored the views and experiences of VOICE participants, their male partners and community members regarding the use of ARV as PrEP in the VOICE trial and the implications of these shared meanings for adherence. Methods: VOICE-C was a qualitative ancillary study conducted at the Johannesburg site of VOICE, a multisite, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial testing tenofovir gel, oral tenofovir and oral Truvada® for HIV PrEP. We interviewed 102 randomly selected female VOICE participants, 22 male partners and 40 community members through in-depth interviews, serial ethnography, or focus group discussions. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, translated and coded thematically for analysis. Results: The concept of ARV for prevention was understood to varying degrees across all study groups. A majority of VOICE participants understood that the products contained ARV, more so for the tablets than for the gel. Although participants knew they were HIV negative, ARV was associated with illness. Male partners and community members echoed these sentiments, highlighting confusion between treatment and prevention. Concerned that they would be mistakenly identified as HIV positive, VOICE participants often concealed use of or hid their study products. This occasionally led to relationship conflicts or early trial termination. HIV stigma and its association with ARV, especially the tablets, was articulated in rumour and gossip in the community, the workplace and the household. Although ARV were recognised as potent and beneficial medications, transforming the AIDS body from sickness to health, they were regarded as potentially harmful for those uninfected. Conclusions: VOICE participants and others in the trial community struggled to conceptualise the idea of using ARV for prevention. This possibly influenced willingness to adopt ARV-based prevention in the VOICE clinical trial. Greater investments should be made to increase community understanding of ARV for prevention and to mitigate pervasive HIV stigma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]