Oni J Blackstock1, Brent A Moore2, Gail V Berkenblit3, Sarah K Calabrese4, Chinazo O Cunningham5, David A Fiellin2,4, Viraj V Patel5, Karran A Phillips6, Jeanette M Tetrault2, Minesh Shah7, E Jennifer Edelman2,4. 1. Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 3300 Kossuth Avenue, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA. oblackst@montefiore.org. 2. Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 3. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA. 5. Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 3300 Kossuth Avenue, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA. 6. NIDA-Intramural Research Program, NIH, Baltimore, MD, USA. 7. University of Illinois-Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among health care providers, prescription of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been low. Little is known specifically about primary care physicians (PCPs) with regard to PrEP awareness and adoption (i.e., prescription or referral), and factors associated with adoption. OBJECTIVE: To assess PrEP awareness, PrEP adoption, and factors associated with adoption among PCPs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey conducted in April and May 2015. RESPONDENTS: Members of a national professional organization for academic primary care physicians (n = 266). MAIN MEASURES: PrEP awareness, PrEP adoption (ever prescribed or referred a patient for PrEP [yes/no]), provider and practice characteristics, and self-rated knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs associated with adoption. KEY RESULTS: The survey response rate was 8.6 % (266/2093). Ninety-three percent of respondents reported prior awareness of PrEP. Of these, 34.9 % reported PrEP adoption. In multivariable analysis of provider and practice characteristics, compared with non-adopters, adopters were more likely to provide care to more than 50 HIV-positive patients (vs. 0, aOR = 6.82, 95 % CI 2.06-22.52). Compared with non-adopters, adopters were also more likely to report excellent, very good, or good self-rated PrEP knowledge (15.1 %, 33.7 %, 30.2 % vs. 2.5 %, 18.1 %, 23.8 %, respectively; p < 0.001) and to perceive PrEP as extremely safe (35.1 % vs. 10.7 %; p = 0.002). Compared with non-adopters, adopters were less likely to perceive PrEP as being moderately likely to increase risk behaviors ("risk compensation") (12.8 % vs. 28.8 %, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: While most respondents were aware of PrEP, only one-third of PrEP-aware PCPs reported adoption. Adopters were more likely to have experience providing HIV care and to perceive PrEP as extremely safe, and were less likely to perceive PrEP use as leading to risk compensation. To enhance PCP adoption of PrEP, educational efforts targeting PCPs without HIV care experience should be considered, as well as training those with HIV care experience to be PrEP "clinical champions". Concerns about safety and risk compensation must also be addressed.
BACKGROUND: Among health care providers, prescription of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been low. Little is known specifically about primary care physicians (PCPs) with regard to PrEP awareness and adoption (i.e., prescription or referral), and factors associated with adoption. OBJECTIVE: To assess PrEP awareness, PrEP adoption, and factors associated with adoption among PCPs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey conducted in April and May 2015. RESPONDENTS: Members of a national professional organization for academic primary care physicians (n = 266). MAIN MEASURES: PrEP awareness, PrEP adoption (ever prescribed or referred a patient for PrEP [yes/no]), provider and practice characteristics, and self-rated knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs associated with adoption. KEY RESULTS: The survey response rate was 8.6 % (266/2093). Ninety-three percent of respondents reported prior awareness of PrEP. Of these, 34.9 % reported PrEP adoption. In multivariable analysis of provider and practice characteristics, compared with non-adopters, adopters were more likely to provide care to more than 50 HIV-positive patients (vs. 0, aOR = 6.82, 95 % CI 2.06-22.52). Compared with non-adopters, adopters were also more likely to report excellent, very good, or good self-rated PrEP knowledge (15.1 %, 33.7 %, 30.2 % vs. 2.5 %, 18.1 %, 23.8 %, respectively; p < 0.001) and to perceive PrEP as extremely safe (35.1 % vs. 10.7 %; p = 0.002). Compared with non-adopters, adopters were less likely to perceive PrEP as being moderately likely to increase risk behaviors ("risk compensation") (12.8 % vs. 28.8 %, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: While most respondents were aware of PrEP, only one-third of PrEP-aware PCPs reported adoption. Adopters were more likely to have experience providing HIV care and to perceive PrEP as extremely safe, and were less likely to perceive PrEP use as leading to risk compensation. To enhance PCP adoption of PrEP, educational efforts targeting PCPs without HIV care experience should be considered, as well as training those with HIV care experience to be PrEP "clinical champions". Concerns about safety and risk compensation must also be addressed.
Entities:
Keywords:
HIV prevention; implementation; pre-exposure prophylaxis; primary care physicians
Authors: Susie Hoffman; John A Guidry; Kate L Collier; Joanne E Mantell; Daria Boccher-Lattimore; Farnaz Kaighobadi; Theo G M Sandfort Journal: J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care Date: 2015-08-20
Authors: Jared M Baeten; Deborah Donnell; Patrick Ndase; Nelly R Mugo; James D Campbell; Jonathan Wangisi; Jordan W Tappero; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Craig R Cohen; Elly Katabira; Allan Ronald; Elioda Tumwesigye; Edwin Were; Kenneth H Fife; James Kiarie; Carey Farquhar; Grace John-Stewart; Aloysious Kakia; Josephine Odoyo; Akasiima Mucunguzi; Edith Nakku-Joloba; Rogers Twesigye; Kenneth Ngure; Cosmas Apaka; Harrison Tamooh; Fridah Gabona; Andrew Mujugira; Dana Panteleeff; Katherine K Thomas; Lara Kidoguchi; Meighan Krows; Jennifer Revall; Susan Morrison; Harald Haugen; Mira Emmanuel-Ogier; Lisa Ondrejcek; Robert W Coombs; Lisa Frenkel; Craig Hendrix; Namandjé N Bumpus; David Bangsberg; Jessica E Haberer; Wendy S Stevens; Jairam R Lingappa; Connie Celum Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Virginia A Fonner; Sarah L Dalglish; Caitlin E Kennedy; Rachel Baggaley; Kevin R O'Reilly; Florence M Koechlin; Michelle Rodolph; Ioannis Hodges-Mameletzis; Robert M Grant Journal: AIDS Date: 2016-07-31 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Sheena McCormack; David T Dunn; Monica Desai; David I Dolling; Mitzy Gafos; Richard Gilson; Ann K Sullivan; Amanda Clarke; Iain Reeves; Gabriel Schembri; Nicola Mackie; Christine Bowman; Charles J Lacey; Vanessa Apea; Michael Brady; Julie Fox; Stephen Taylor; Simone Antonucci; Saye H Khoo; James Rooney; Anthony Nardone; Martin Fisher; Alan McOwan; Andrew N Phillips; Anne M Johnson; Brian Gazzard; Owen N Gill Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Julia L Marcus; Kenneth Levine; Chris Grasso; Douglas S Krakower; Victoria Powell; Kenneth H Mayer Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Kirk D Henny; Christopher C Duke; Angelica Geter; Zaneta Gaul; Chantell Frazier; Jennifer Peterson; Kate Buchacz; Madeline Y Sutton Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2019-11
Authors: Christina J Sun; Kirsten M Anderson; David Bangsberg; Kim Toevs; Dayna Morrison; Caitlin Wells; Pete Clark; Christina Nicolaidis Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-02-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: E Jennifer Edelman; Brent A Moore; Sarah K Calabrese; Gail Berkenblit; Chinazo Cunningham; Viraj Patel; Karran Phillips; Jeanette M Tetrault; Minesh Shah; David A Fiellin; Oni Blackstock Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2017-04
Authors: Benedikt Pleuhs; Katherine G Quinn; Jennifer L Walsh; Andrew E Petroll; Steven A John Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2020-02-28 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Julia Raifman; Kristen Nocka; Omar Galárraga; Ira B Wilson; Christina Crowley; Jun Tao; Siena Napoleon; Theodore Marak; Philip A Chan Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 3.797