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]

One hope surrounding long-acting HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is reaching new users who could most benefit, as well as improving the experiences of oral PrEP users who may desire to switch modalities. Gay, bisexual, queer, and other men who have sex with men (GBQM) continue to make up over half of new HIV diagnoses in Canada, and oral PrEP uptake has plateaued among this population. Approval of injectable PrEP is anticipated, but there is a paucity of research to inform health promotion and implementation. Between June and October 2021, we conducted 22 in-depth interviews with GBQM oral PrEP users and non-PrEP users living in Ontario, Canada. We also conducted small focus groups or individual interviews with 20 key stakeholders (health care providers, public health officials, community-based organization staff). Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed in NVivo using thematic analysis. Only about one-third of GBQM had heard of injectable PrEP. Many PrEP users perceived greater convenience, adherence, and confidentiality with injectable PrEP. Some PrEP users did not anticipate switching because of needle discomfort or feeling more "in control" with oral PrEP. None of the non-PrEP users said that injectable PrEP would make them start PrEP. Injectable PrEP may offer additional convenience for GBQM; however, it did not appear to affect participants' PrEP decision-making significantly. Stakeholders noted that injectable PrEP may improve access, support adherence, and benefit marginalized groups. Some clinicians expressed concerns about the time/personnel required to make injectable PrEP available. System-level challenges in implementing injectable PrEP, including cost, must also be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Our objective was to understand what gay, bisexual, and queer men (GBQM) who had experience using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) thought about the 'Undetectable equals Untransmittable' (U=U) message and how it informed their sexual decision-making over time. Methods. We conducted annual longitudinal qualitative interviews (2020-22) with 17 current or former PrEP users as part of a mixed-methods implementation science study examining barriers and facilitators to PrEP awareness, access, and adherence. Over 3 years, 47 interviews were conducted with GBQM in Ontario, Canada. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded in NVivo following reflexive thematic analysis. Results. Participants' sexual health decision-making was informed by their confidence in biomedical HIV prevention and the person taking medication (i.e. themselves using PrEP versus a real/imagined person living with HIV (PLHIV)). Longitudinal narratives of U=U clustered around four overarching themes: (1) U=U confidence (i.e. increasing trust in U=U irrespective of their PrEP use); (2) PrEP confidence (i.e. accounts of self-reliance and PrEP as sufficient HIV protection); (3) combination confidence (i.e. trusting U=U and PrEP as a package); and (4) partner confidence (i.e. potential 'distrust' of U=U due to uncertainties about partners' medication adherence). Overall, men described increased sex with PLHIV over time, including some participants who, during earlier interviews, said they would 'never be comfortable' with serodifferent sexual partners. Conclusions. GBQM's use of PrEP shaped how they thought about U=U and sex with PLHIV. Although many GBQM embraced treatment as prevention/U=U as significant to their sexual lives, longitudinal analysis revealed its varied and uneven adoption across participants and time. [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]

"Undetectable equals Untransmittable", or U=U, is a public health message designed to reduce HIV stigma and help communicate the scientific consensus that HIV cannot be sexually transmitted when a person living with HIV has an undetectable viral load. Between October 2020-February 2021 we conducted 11 in-depth interviews and 3 focus groups with diverse HIV/STI service providers (nurses, public health workers, physicians, frontline providers, and sexual health educators) in Ontario, Canada (n = 18). Our objective was to understand how U=U was communicated to sexual health service users in healthcare interactions. Interview questions were embedded in a larger study focused on improving access to HIV/STI testing. Transcripts were transcribed verbatim and analysed following grounded theory. Most providers emphasized the significance of U=U as a biomedical advancement in HIV prevention but had some challenges communicating U=U in everyday practice. We discovered four interrelated barriers when communicating the U=U message: (1) provider-perceived challenges with "zero risk" messaging (e.g., wanting to "leave a margin" of HIV risk); (2) service users not interested in receiving sexual health information (e.g., in order to provide "client centered care" some providers do not share U=U messages if service users are only interested in HIV/STI testing or if other discussions must be prioritized); (3) skepticism and HIV stigma from service users (e.g., providers explained how the hesitancy of some service users accepting the U=U message was shaped by a legacy of HIV prevention messages and persistent HIV stigma); and (4) need for more culturally appropriate resources (e.g., communities other than sexual and gender minority men; non-English speaking service users; that account for broader legal context). We discuss ways to overcome barriers to communicating the U=U message as well as the limitations and potential unintended consequences of U=U framings in the context of unequal access to HIV prevention and treatment. [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]

Men living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are internationally recognized as a priority population for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. Our objective was to explore HPV vaccine uptake among men living with HIV in Ontario, Canada, and investigate differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated men. We used data from a cross-sectional questionnaire administered between 2016 and 2017 among men living with HIV and participating in the Ontario HIV Treatment Network Cohort Study. We calculated the proportion vaccinated against HPV, described vaccination experiences, and HPV vaccine knowledge, and calculated differences in characteristics between vaccinated and unvaccinated men. Among 1651 men (mean age = 51 years, 72% identified as gay), 7% were vaccinated (95% confidence interval[CI] 5.5-7.9%); 85% received their first dose at a primary care or HIV clinic. Among unvaccinated men, 40% were unaware of the HPV vaccine, 65% reported low perceived risk for HPV, and 8% discussed HPV vaccination with a physician. Compared to unvaccinated men, vaccinated men were younger, most identified as gay, had a higher education/income, reported a higher number of recent sex partners, and had a history of bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HPV, anogenital warts, and/or anal cancer. Our findings reveal that few men living with HIV were vaccinated against HPV. This may be influenced by low HPV awareness, prohibitive cost, and lack of physician recommendation. Several men reporting lower socio-economic status, older men, and heterosexual, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men were missed for vaccination. Primary care and HIV clinics may be ideal locations to increase uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated anal cancer is orders of magnitude higher among men living with HIV than the general male population. Our objective was to examine factors associated with HPV awareness and self-perceived risk for HPV-associated anal cancer among men living with HIV, which may influence uptake of cancer prevention strategies. A cross-sectional questionnaire on HPV was administered from 2016 to 2017 to 1677 men in a multisite, HIV clinical cohort in Ontario, Canada. We used logistic regression and proportional odds models to identify factors associated with being familiar with HPV and increasing self-perceived risk for anal cancer, respectively. We used correspondence analysis to examine associations of specific HPV-related knowledge with self-perceived risk. Only 52% were familiar with HPV, and 72% felt they had no or low risk for anal cancer. Familiarity with HPV was more common among men who have sex with men than heterosexual men (58% vs. 21%). Older men were less likely to be familiar with HPV (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per 10 years = 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69, 0.85). Familiarity with HPV was associated with increasing self-perceived risk (aOR = 2.39; 95% CI: 1.87, 3.04). After accounting for differences in HPV awareness and sexual orientation, racialized men had lower self-perceived risk (aOR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.88). In the correspondence analysis, risk-focused HPV-related knowledge (e.g., knowing smoking increases risk) was associated with highest risk perception. Efforts are needed to improve HPV-related health literacy in this population. Our findings suggest specific HPV-related knowledge may differentially influence self-perceived risk for anal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unemployment is more common among people living with HIV (PLWH) compared to the general population. PLWH who are employed have better physical and mental health outcomes compared to unemployed PLWH. The main objective of this mixed-methods study was to conduct a program evaluation of Employment Action (EACT), a community-based program that assists PLWH in Toronto, Ontario, Canada to maintain meaningful employment. We extracted quantitative data from two HIV services databases used by EACT, and collected qualitative data from 12 individuals who had been placed into paid employment through EACT. From 131 clients included in the analysis, 38.1% (n = 50) maintained their job for at least 6 weeks within the first year of enrollment in the EACT program. Gender, ethnicity, age, and first language did not predict employment maintenance. Our interviews highlighted the barriers and facilitators to effective service delivery. Key recommendations include implementing skills training, embedding PLWH as EACT staff, and following up with clients once they gain employment. Investment in social programs such as EACT are essential for strengthening their data collection capacity, active outreach to service users, and sufficient planning for the evaluation phase prior to program implementation.

Background: Our objective was to quantify the extent of anal cancer screening among men receiving HIV specialty care in Ontario, Canada, and evaluate factors associated with screening., Setting: Cross-sectional questionnaire within a multisite clinical HIV cohort., Methods: A questionnaire assessing knowledge and experience with human papillomavirus-associated diseases and their prevention was administered in 2016-2017 to 1677 men in the Ontario HIV Treatment Network Cohort Study. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with having discussed screening with a health care provider and self-reported receipt of screening [digital anal rectal examinations (DARE); anal cytology or anoscopy]. Results reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: Forty percent of men reported ever having had anal cytology/anoscopy, and 70% had ever had DARE. After accounting for differences in age, sexual orientation, years since HIV diagnosis, previous diagnosis with AIDS, knowing someone with human papillomavirus-associated cancer, comfort discussing anal health, education, and income, the proportion screened differed by self-identified race. Compared with white men, Asian men were less likely to have discussed screening with a health care provider (aOR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.80) or to have been screened by DARE (aOR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.44) or anal cytology/anoscopy (aOR = 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.83), and African, Caribbean, or black men (aOR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.70) were less likely to have had DARE. Results were consistent when restricting the analyses to gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men., Conclusion: Our findings highlight the potential for disparities in anal cancer screening that need to be considered when developing guidelines and screening programs to reduce the burden of anal cancer among men living with HIV and ensure health equity.