H Jonathon Rendina1, Thomas H F Whitfield2, Christian Grov3, Tyrel J Starks1, Jeffrey T Parsons4. 1. Department of Psychology, Hunter College of the City University of New York (CUNY), New York, NY, United States; Center for HIV/AIDS Educational Studies & Training, Hunter College of the City University of New York (CUNY), New York, NY, United States; Health Psychology and Clinical Sciences Doctoral Program, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY), New York, NY, United States. 2. Center for HIV/AIDS Educational Studies & Training, Hunter College of the City University of New York (CUNY), New York, NY, United States; Health Psychology and Clinical Sciences Doctoral Program, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY), New York, NY, United States. 3. Center for HIV/AIDS Educational Studies & Training, Hunter College of the City University of New York (CUNY), New York, NY, United States; CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, New York, NY, United States. 4. Department of Psychology, Hunter College of the City University of New York (CUNY), New York, NY, United States; Center for HIV/AIDS Educational Studies & Training, Hunter College of the City University of New York (CUNY), New York, NY, United States; Health Psychology and Clinical Sciences Doctoral Program, The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY), New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: Jeffrey.Parsons@hunter.cuny.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Much of the data on the acceptability of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) is based on willingness to take PrEP (i.e., hypothetical receptivity) rather than actual intentions (i.e., planned behavioral action) to do so. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine differences between hypothetical willingness and behavioral intentions to begin PrEP in a national sample of gay and bisexual men (GBM) across the U.S. METHODS: We utilized data collected in 2015 to examine differences between those Unwilling (42.6% n = 375), Willing but not intending (41.4%, n = 365), and willing and Intending to take PrEP (15.9%, n = 140) in a multivariable, multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Men with less education had higher odds of Intending to take PrEP. Compared to men unsure about PrEP's efficacy, those who believed PrEP was at least 90% efficacious had higher odds of Intending to take PrEP. Those who saw themselves as appropriate candidates for PrEP had higher odds of Intending to take PrEP while those who saw themselves as inappropriate candidates for PrEP had lower odds of Intending to take PrEP in comparison to men unsure if they were appropriate candidates. Increased motivation for condom non-use because of perceived sexual pressure by partners was associated with higher odds of Intending to take PrEP. The groups did not differ by risk behavior nor recent STI diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the distinction between willingness and intentions to take PrEP was meaningful and may help explain disparities between PrEP acceptability and uptake. While much of the literature has focused on hypothetical willingness to take PrEP, these results highlight the importance of simultaneously assessing willingness and intentions when examining correspondence with uptake and developing interventions to increase PrEP uptake.
RATIONALE: Much of the data on the acceptability of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) is based on willingness to take PrEP (i.e., hypothetical receptivity) rather than actual intentions (i.e., planned behavioral action) to do so. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine differences between hypothetical willingness and behavioral intentions to begin PrEP in a national sample of gay and bisexual men (GBM) across the U.S. METHODS: We utilized data collected in 2015 to examine differences between those Unwilling (42.6% n = 375), Willing but not intending (41.4%, n = 365), and willing and Intending to take PrEP (15.9%, n = 140) in a multivariable, multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS:Men with less education had higher odds of Intending to take PrEP. Compared to men unsure about PrEP's efficacy, those who believed PrEP was at least 90% efficacious had higher odds of Intending to take PrEP. Those who saw themselves as appropriate candidates for PrEP had higher odds of Intending to take PrEP while those who saw themselves as inappropriate candidates for PrEP had lower odds of Intending to take PrEP in comparison to men unsure if they were appropriate candidates. Increased motivation for condom non-use because of perceived sexual pressure by partners was associated with higher odds of Intending to take PrEP. The groups did not differ by risk behavior nor recent STI diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the distinction between willingness and intentions to take PrEP was meaningful and may help explain disparities between PrEP acceptability and uptake. While much of the literature has focused on hypothetical willingness to take PrEP, these results highlight the importance of simultaneously assessing willingness and intentions when examining correspondence with uptake and developing interventions to increase PrEP uptake.
Authors: Adamma Aghaizu; Danielle Mercey; Andrew Copas; Anne M Johnson; Graham Hart; Anthony Nardone Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Peter L Anderson; David V Glidden; Albert Liu; Susan Buchbinder; Javier R Lama; Juan Vicente Guanira; Vanessa McMahan; Lane R Bushman; Martín Casapía; Orlando Montoya-Herrera; Valdilea G Veloso; Kenneth H Mayer; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Mauro Schechter; Linda-Gail Bekker; Esper Georges Kallás; Robert M Grant Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Devin English; Joseph A Carter; Lisa Bowleg; David J Malebranche; Ali J Talan; H Jonathon Rendina Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Yumeng Wu; Lu Xie; Siyan Meng; Jianhua Hou; Rong Fu; Huang Zheng; Na He; Kathrine Meyers Journal: LGBT Health Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.151
Authors: Jeffrey T Parsons; H Jonathon Rendina; Jonathan M Lassiter; Thomas H F Whitfield; Tyrel J Starks; Christian Grov Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Steven A John; H Jonathon Rendina; Tyrel J Starks; Christian Grov; Jeffrey T Parsons Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Alvin Gordián-Arroyo; Robert Garofalo; Lisa M Kuhns; Cynthia Pearson; Josh Bruce; D Scott Batey; Asa Radix; Uri Belkind; Marco A Hidalgo; Sabina Hirshfield; Eric W Schrimshaw; Rebecca Schnall Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Jacqueline Ellison; Jacob J van den Berg; Madeline C Montgomery; Jun Tao; Rashmi Pashankar; Matthew J Mimiaga; Philip A Chan Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Thomas H F Whitfield; Stephen S Jones; Matthew Wachman; Christian Grov; Jeffrey T Parsons; H Jonathon Rendina Journal: J Sex Res Date: 2019-02-19