Search

Maintaining routines of medication dosing requires effort amidst the variabilities of everyday life. This article offers a sociomaterial analysis of how the oral HIV prevention regimen, pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), is put to use and made to work, including in situations which disrupt or complicate dosing regimes. Other than a daily pill, PrEP can be taken less frequently based on anticipated sexual activity and HIV risk, including 'on‐demand' and 'periodic' dosing. Drawing on 40 interviews with PrEP users in Australia in 2022, we explore PrEP and its dosing as features of assemblages in which bodies, routines, desires, material objects and the home environment interact. Dosing emerges as a practice of coordination involving dosette boxes, blister packs, alarms, partners, pets, planning sex, routines and domestic space, and as an effect of experimentations with timing to suit life circumstances and manage side effects. Dosing is materialised in the mundane; a practice that is made to work, as well as domesticated, in its situations. Although there are no 'simple' solutions to adherence, our analysis offers practical insights into how routine, planning and experimentation come together to capacitate PrEP to work in people's lives, in sometimes unexpected ways, including through adaptations of PrEP dosing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through the development and implementation of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the characteristics of PrEP users have been configured in a range of ways. Drawing on the concept of 'imaginaries', we consider how clinicians imagine PrEP users and related communities. We conducted 28 semi-structured interviews in 2019–2020 with PrEP-providing clinicians based in New South Wales and Western Australia. Participants included general practitioners, sexual health nurses and sexual health doctors. We inductively developed three themes through a reflexive thematic analysis: 'PrEP users as 99% gay men/MSM', 'The informed and connected PrEP user', and 'Condom users in the PrEP era'. Participants imagined PrEP users primarily as gay men, and so we focused on how gay community was imagined in relation to PrEP users. Users were imagined as supporting one another to use PrEP effectively, but some were imagined as threatening norms of condom use amongst gay community. Analysing clinician imaginaries of PrEP users reveals insight into how clinicians speculate about and engage with changing community norms related to condom use and accessing PrEP. These imaginaries reveal ongoing tensions about who is believed to be best suited to PrEP, and PrEP's impact on norms of conduct in imagined biosocial communities like gay men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New medicines can transform routines and priorities in clinical practice, but how do clinicians think and feel about these changes, and how does it affect their work? In Australia, the HIV prevention regimen pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been rapidly rolled out, transforming the sexual cultures and practices of users, but less attention has been given to the ways PrEP has reconfigured clinical practice. This paper draws on 28 qualitative semi‐structured interviews conducted between 2019 and 2020 with PrEP‐providing doctors and nurses in Australia to consider how they have affectively engaged with PrEP and put it into practice. Through a reflexive thematic analysis, we explore how clinicians adapted to PrEP, how the field of HIV prevention has been transformed, and how these developments have changed how clinicians approach patients. While the introduction of PrEP was initially received with uncertainty and shock, clinicians described PrEP as enjoyable to prescribe, and better aligned with the moral duties of sexual health consultations than existing HIV prevention strategies like condoms. Through approaching clinical work as an 'affective practice', we argue for attending not only to how new interventions change expectations and practices, but also how these changes are felt and valued by clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary sociological work has emphasised that family is not static, but actively shaped by ideas of who and what makes family. Disclosure of an illness, including diagnosis of stigmatised infections such as HIV, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus, can change the dynamics of family relationships. This paper draws on 61 qualitative semi‐structured interviews conducted between 2017 and 2019 with people in Australia with one or more of these blood‐borne viruses (BBVs) and their family members, to understand the experiences of serodiscordant (mixed viral status) families. Through a thematic analysis, we explore the family imaginaries that participants evoked when describing their disclosure practices in relation to (self‐defined) family members, revealing how some participants disclosed in ways that enabled them to shape their family, to maintain boundaries between self and family or to protect family from distress. Participants' accounts of disclosure to family revealed imaginaries of family as a precious web of connections to be nurtured or protected, but also as sites of ambivalent belonging and complex history. We conclude that BBV disclosure practices within families reveal important ideas about families that are imagined in response to the threat of loss, change and stigma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The broadening of access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in Australia has rekindled debates about which types of clinicians are best suited to deliver HIV prevention innovations: specialist HIV services or primary care physicians and general practitioners (GPs). We conducted 21 semi-structured qualitative interviews in 2017 with Australian HIV sector experts working across policy, advocacy, clinical service provision, research, and health promotion. These interviews took place before a national policy commitment to subsidising access to PrEP was achieved. We explored how participants conceptualised PrEP, patients and GPs at this key turning point in the history of HIV prevention. Participants expressed varied views regarding GPs' anticipated ability to successfully navigate the potential complexities associated with PrEP roll-out. While participants were supportive of greater patient access to PrEP, they expressed concerns about non-specialist GPs' cultural competence and expertise regarding sexuality and clinical practice, and the potential for patients to experience discrimination and homophobia from non-expert GPs. This study has broad implications for thinking about experts and expertise, the implementation of previously specialised medicine into mainstream settings, and the anticipated challenges of LGBTIQ+ inclusive healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]