Mimi Doll1, J Dennis Fortenberry2, Denise Roseland3, Kathleen McAuliff3, Craig M Wilson4, Cherrie B Boyer5. 1. Candeo Consulting, Inc., Downers Grove, Illinois. Electronic address: mimi4712@gmail.com. 2. Division of Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana. 3. Candeo Consulting, Inc., Downers Grove, Illinois. 4. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 5. Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Linkage of HIV-negative youth to prevention services is increasingly important with the development of effective pre-exposure prophylaxis that complements behavioral and other prevention-focused interventions. However, effective infrastructure for delivery of prevention services does not exist, leaving many programs to address HIV prevention without data to guide program development/implementation. The objective of this study was to provide a qualitative description of barriers and facilitators of linkage to prevention services among high-risk, HIV-negative youth. DESIGN: Thematic analysis of structured interviews with staff implementing linkage to prevention services programs for youth aged 12-24 years. METHODS: Twelve adolescent medicine HIV primary care programs as part of larger testing research program focused on young sexual minority men of color. The study included staff implementing linkage to prevention services programs along with community-based HIV testing programs. The main outcomes of the study were key barriers/facilitators to linkage to prevention services. RESULTS: Eight themes summarized perspectives on linkage to prevention services: (1) relationships with community partners, (2) trust between providers and youth, (3) youth capacity to navigate prevention services, (4) pre-exposure prophylaxis specific issues, (5) privacy issues, (6) gaps in health records preventing tailored services, (7) confidentiality of care for youth accessing services through parents'/caretakers' insurance, and (8) need for health-care institutions to keep pace with models that prioritize HIV prevention among at-risk youth. Themes are discussed in the context of factors that facilitated/challenged linkage to prevention services. CONCLUSIONS: Several evidence-based HIV prevention tools are available; infrastructures for coordinated service delivery to high-risk youth have not been developed. Implementation of such infrastructures requires attention to community-, provider-, and youth-related issues.
PURPOSE: Linkage of HIV-negative youth to prevention services is increasingly important with the development of effective pre-exposure prophylaxis that complements behavioral and other prevention-focused interventions. However, effective infrastructure for delivery of prevention services does not exist, leaving many programs to address HIV prevention without data to guide program development/implementation. The objective of this study was to provide a qualitative description of barriers and facilitators of linkage to prevention services among high-risk, HIV-negative youth. DESIGN: Thematic analysis of structured interviews with staff implementing linkage to prevention services programs for youth aged 12-24 years. METHODS: Twelve adolescent medicine HIV primary care programs as part of larger testing research program focused on young sexual minority men of color. The study included staff implementing linkage to prevention services programs along with community-based HIV testing programs. The main outcomes of the study were key barriers/facilitators to linkage to prevention services. RESULTS: Eight themes summarized perspectives on linkage to prevention services: (1) relationships with community partners, (2) trust between providers and youth, (3) youth capacity to navigate prevention services, (4) pre-exposure prophylaxis specific issues, (5) privacy issues, (6) gaps in health records preventing tailored services, (7) confidentiality of care for youth accessing services through parents'/caretakers' insurance, and (8) need for health-care institutions to keep pace with models that prioritize HIV prevention among at-risk youth. Themes are discussed in the context of factors that facilitated/challenged linkage to prevention services. CONCLUSIONS: Several evidence-based HIV prevention tools are available; infrastructures for coordinated service delivery to high-risk youth have not been developed. Implementation of such infrastructures requires attention to community-, provider-, and youth-related issues.
Authors: Lauren B Beach; George J Greene; Peter Lindeman; Amy K Johnson; Christian N Adames; Matthew Thomann; Patrick C T Washington; Gregory Phillips Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Sean R Cahill; Sophia R Geffen; Holly B Fontenot; Timothy M Wang; Melissa Heim Viox; Erin Fordyce; Michael J Stern; Christopher R Harper; Michelle M Johns; Sabrina A Avripas; Stuart Michaels; Kenneth H Mayer; Richard Dunville Journal: J Pediatr Health Care Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 1.812
Authors: Danielle Giovenco; Kathryn E Muessig; Casey Horvitz; Katie B Biello; Albert Y Liu; Keith J Horvath; Jesse M Golinkoff; Cathy J Reback; Lisa Hightow-Weidman Journal: Mhealth Date: 2021-04-20
Authors: Rupa R Patel; Amy S Nunn; Kenneth H Mayer; Timothy McBride; Ross C Brownson; Cheryl Oliver; Maria M Perez; Laura C Harrison; Amber Salter; John S Crane; Philip A Chan Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 5.944