Search

Background: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV is underutilized. We aimed to identify barriers to use of PrEP and strategies that may facilitate its uptake. Methods: Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men, aged 19 years or older and living in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada, completed a cross-sectional survey in 2019–2020. Participants who met Canadian PrEP guideline criteria and were not already using PrEP identified relevant barriers and which strategies would make them more likely to start PrEP. We described the barriers and strategies separately for Ontario and BC. Results: Of 1527 survey responses, 260 respondents who never used PrEP and met criteria for PrEP were included. In Ontario, the most common barriers were affordability (43%) and concern about adverse effects (42%). In BC, the most common reasons were concern about adverse effects (41%) and not feeling at high enough risk (36%). In Ontario, preferred strategies were short waiting time (63%), the health care provider informing about their HIV risk being higher than perceived (62%), and a written step-by-step guide (60%). In BC, strategies were short waiting time (68%), people speaking publicly about PrEP (68%), and the health care provider counselling about their HIV risk being higher than perceived (64%), adverse effects of PrEP (65%) and how well PrEP works (62%). Interpretation: Concern about adverse effects and not self-identifying as having high risk for HIV were common barriers, and shorter waiting times may increase PrEP uptake. In Ontario, the findings suggested lack of affordability, whereas in BC, strategies involving health care providers were valued. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Self-perceived and clinically assessed HIV risk do not always align. We compared self-perceived and clinically assessed risk of HIV and the reasons for self-perceived low risk of HIV among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) from large urban centers in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Methods: Never PrEP users recruited from sexual health clinics or online, completed a cross-sectional survey between July/2019 and August/2020. We contrasted self-perceived HIV risk against criteria from the Canadian PrEP guidelines and participants were categorized as concordant or discordant. We used content analysis to categorize participants' free-text explanations for perceived low HIV risk. These were compared with answers to quantitative responses about condomless sex acts and number of partners. Results: Of 315 GBM who self-perceived low risk of HIV, 146 (46%) were considered at high risk according to the guidelines. Participants with discordant assessment were younger, had less years of formal education, were more often in an open relationship and were more likely to self-identify as gay. Reasons for self-perceived low HIV risk in the discordant group were condom use (27%), being in a committed relationship/having one main partner (15%), having no or infrequent anal sex (12%) and having few partners (10%). Conclusions: There is a disjuncture between self-perceived and clinically assessed risk of HIV. Some GBM may underestimate their HIV risk and clinical criteria may overestimate risk. Bridging these gaps requires efforts to increase HIV risk awareness in the community, and refinement of clinical assessments based on individualized discussions between the provider and the user. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: 'Syndemic' refers to socially produced, intertwined, and co-occurring epidemics. Syndemic theory is increasingly used to understand the population-level relationships between sexual health (including HIV) and mental health (including problematic substance use) epidemics. Syndemic-informed clinical interventions are rare.Methods: We therefore asked 22 sexual health practitioners from six sexual health clinics in British Columbia, Canada to define the word 'syndemic' and then asked how the theory related to their clinical practice.Results: Responses to syndemic theory ranged widely, with some practitioners providing nuanced and clinically informed definitions, others expressing a vague familiarity with the term, and others still having no prior knowledge of it. Where practitioners acknowledged the relevance of syndemic theory to their practice, they articulated specific ways in which syndemics create moral distress, that is, feeling that the most ethical course of action is different from what they are mandated to do. While some practitioners routinely used open-ended questions to understand the social and economic contexts of patients' sexual health needs, they described an uneasiness at potentially having surfaced concerns that could not be addressed in the sexual health clinic. Many observed persistent social, mental health, and substance use-related needs among their patients, but were unable to find feasible solutions to these issues.Conclusions: We therefore propose that interventions are needed to support sexual health practitioners in addressing psychosocial health needs that extend beyond their scope of practice, thereby reducing 'syndemic moral distress'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We aimed to explore the association between PrEP-related stereotypes and perceived disapproval (hereafter PrEP-related stigma), and PrEP use. Methods: We used data from a cross-sectional online survey among adult gay, bisexual, other men who have sex with men in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada. Participants were recruited 2019–2020 in-person from sexual health clinics and outreach programs, and online through dating mobile applications and websites. We used logistic regression models to explore the relationship between PrEP-related stigma and: 1-being a 'never' versus 'current' PrEP user, and 2-being a 'former' versus 'current' user. Results: The median age of the sample was 32 (Q1-Q3 = 27–40), most were white born in Canada (48%), 45% had never used PrEP, 16% were former PrEP users and 39% were current PrEP users. Of 1527 individuals who started the survey, 1190 participants answered questions about PrEP-related stigma: 254 (21.3%) were classified as having low level of PrEP-related stigma, 776 (65.2%) intermediate, and 160 (13.5%) high. No significant association was found when never PrEP users and current PrEP users were compared: adjusted OR = 1.44 (95%-CI: 0.8–2.5). High PrEP-related stigma was positively associated with being a former PrEP user compared to being a current PrEP user: adjusted OR = 2.5 (95%-CI: 1.3–4.9). Conclusion: PrEP-related stigma is associated with not using PrEP, particularly with PrEP discontinuation. Our findings indicate that stigma persists as a barrier to PrEP use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The PrEP Cascade is a dominant framework for investigating barriers to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an HIV prevention tool. We interviewed 37 PrEP users and 8 non-PrEP users in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada, about their decision-making through the Cascade. Participants were HIV-negative gay, bisexual, and queer men (GBQM). The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. PrEP decision-making was based on pragmatic considerations (logistics, costs, and systemic barriers), biomedical considerations (efficacy, side-effects, and sexually transmitted infections), and subjective considerations (identity, politics, and changing sexual preferences). Affective attachments to established versions of "safer sex" (condoms and serosorting) made some GBQM less likely to try PrEP. Some GBQM expressed increased social expectations to use PrEP, have condomless sex, and serodifferent sex. These findings support offering PrEP at no-cost, offering individualized counseling and community-based opportunities to discuss PrEP use and changing sexual practices, and improving communication on the manageability of PrEP side-effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection (STI) worldwide. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM), and GBM living with HIV in particular, are disproportionately impacted by HPV-associated cancers. The HPV vaccine, given early enough in life, may markedly reduce the likelihood of such cancers. In Canada, most provincial insurance programs only cover HPV vaccination for GBM up to the age of 26. Our objective was to understand physicians' everyday experiences and challenges in recommending HPV vaccination to older GBM patients. Methods: As part of the HPV Screening and Vaccine Evaluation (HPV-SAVE) Study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 HIV-positive GBM patients who had received anal cancer screening and 15 service providers, including 13 physicians, who had arranged for anal cancer screening in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. In this analysis, we draw upon the 13 physician interviews, which were coded following Grounded Theory. Results: Physicians strongly supported the HPV vaccine for all GBM and considered it to be important for the management of HIV-related care. However, the overall support for HPV vaccination among physicians did not translate into consistent recommendation practices. There were two overarching factors that limited the strength/frequency of physicians' vaccine recommendation practices. First, cost/insurance coverage for some older patients impacted if and how the HPV vaccine was discussed. Second, physicians had diverse perspectives on both the prevention and therapeutic benefits of vaccinating older GBM and the reality that national guidelines are incongruent with publicly funded vaccine programs for vaccinating patients over 26 years old. These two interrelated factors have co-produced an apparent economic-evidentiary conundrum for many physicians regarding how and for whom to offer HPV vaccination. Conclusion: Economic barriers coupled with evidentiary and guideline gaps have created clinical practice challenges for physicians and has resulted in different messages being communicated to some older GBM patients about how important HPV vaccination is for their health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]