| Literature DB >> 32231394 |
Dimitris Karletsos1, Charlotte R Greenbaum2, Emily Kobayashi3, Margaret McConnell2.
Abstract
Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV-negative individuals at high risk was introduced in Lesotho in April 2016. To assess the feasibility and acceptability of PrEP in Lesotho and to study the attitudes and beliefs around HIV risk and prevention measures among young women, between September and December 2016 we asked 302 female university students at fourteen higher education institutions in Lesotho about their sexual behavior, experiences of sexual coercion and abuse, HIV risk perception, willingness to use PrEP, as well as their attitudes toward condom use and self-administration of daily medications. Overall, 57.3% of the sample reported perceiving themselves at risk of acquiring HIV and 32.1% reported being strongly willing to use PrEP if it were available in their community. In a multivariate mediation analysis, perceived HIV risk was associated with 11.5 percentage points increase in likelihood of using PrEP (p = 0.041). Multiple concurrent sexual partnership was associated with 16.1 percentage points increase in likelihood of self-perceived HIV risk (p = 0.007), while having sexual partners in polygamous relationships was associated with 17.8 percentage points increase in likelihood of self-perceived HIV risk (p = 0.002) and the mediated indirect effect accounted for 18.2% of its total effect. Those who reported strong adherence to antibiotics were 23.1 percentage points more likely to express willingness to use PrEP than those who did not (p = 0.004), and those who reported to dislike condoms were 19.1 percentage points more likely to be willing to use PrEP than those who did not report aversion to condom use: these effect were direct and not mediated by HIV risk perception. Intimate partner violence (IPV) in the network of peers was also directly associated with willingness to use PrEP and its effect was not significantly mediated by HIV risk perception: those who had friends who experienced intimate partner violence were 14.9 percentage points more likely to be willing to use PrEP than those who did not report IPV in their network of peers (p = 0.009). These findings support the inclusion of individuals with multiple concurrent sexual partners among the key populations for PrEP provision and confirm that willingness to use PrEP is not solely driven by HIV risk perception. They also indicate that the presence of IPV in peer networks is related to one's willingness to use PrEP. PrEP service provision may generate synergies with IPV prevention programs when offered within this framework.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32231394 PMCID: PMC7108705 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230565
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Analytic sample descriptive statistics.
| n = 302 | n (%) |
|---|---|
| University or School: | |
| Centre for Accounting Studies (CAS) | 14 (4.64) |
| Roma College of Nursing (RCN) | 2 (0.66) |
| Scott’s College of Nursing (SCN) | 2 (0.66) |
| Paray School of Nursing (PSN) | 2 (0.66) |
| Maluti School of Nursing (MSN) | 3 (0.99) |
| Botho University (BU) | 3 (0.99) |
| Lesotho College of Education (LCE) | 63 (20.86) |
| Lesotho Institute of Public Administration and Management (LIPAM) | 5 (1.66) |
| National Health Training College (NHTC) | 12 (3.97) |
| Lesotho Agricultural College (LAC) | 6 (1.99) |
| Limkokwing University of Creative Technology (LUCT) | 36 (11.92) |
| Lerotholi Polytechnic (LP) | 20 (6.62) |
| Institute of Development Management (IDM) | 7 (2.32) |
| National University of Lesotho (NUL) | 127 (42.05) |
| Ever been forced to have sex | 118 (39.07) |
| Have friends who were beaten by male partner | 129 (42.71) |
| Have friends who have had sex for money | 85 (28.14) |
| Find it hard to negotiate condom use | 113 (37.42) |
| Report inconsistent condom use | 102 (33.77) |
| Report to dislike condoms | 50 (16.55) |
| Report strong adherence to antibiotics | 42 (13.91) |
| More than one current sexual partner | 118 (39.07) |
| Partner has multiple partners or unsure | 179 (59.27) |
| Had STIs in past 12 months or unsure | 67 (22.18) |
| Age | μ (SD) |
| 21.82 (2.98) |
Fig 1Mediation pathway of HIV risk perception and willingness to use PrEP.
Bivariate analysis: HIV risk perception and willingness to use HIV PrEP by risk predictors and indicators of gender-based violence (n = 302).
| Correlate | Perceived HIV Risk | χ2 (p = ) | Willing to take PrEP | χ2 (p = ) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | No | Yes | |||
| n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | |||
| 129 (42.7) | 173 (57.3) | 205 (67.9) | 97 (32.1) | |||
| Perceived HIV risk | ||||||
| No | - | - | 98 (76.0) | 31 (24.0) | 6.76 (0.009) | |
| Yes | - | - | 107 (61.8) | 66 (38.2) | ||
| Ever been forced to have sex | ||||||
| No | 92 (51.1) | 88 (48.9) | 13.41 (<0.001) | 126 (70.0) | 54 (30.0) | 1.02 (0.312) |
| Yes | 35 (29.7) | 83 (70.3) | 76 (64.4) | 42 (35.6) | ||
| Have friends who were beaten by male partner | ||||||
| No | 83 (48.5) | 88 (51.5) | 6.27 (0.012) | 130 (76.0) | 41 (24.0) | 11.76 (0.001) |
| Yes | 44 (34.1) | 85 (65.9) | 74 (57.4) | 55 (42.6) | ||
| Have friends who have had sex for money | ||||||
| No | 95 (45.0) | 116 (55.0) | 2.96 (0.085) | 153 (72.5) | 58 (27.5) | 7.15 (0.007) |
| Yes | 29 (34.1) | 56 (65.9) | 48 (56.5) | 37 (43.5) | ||
| Find it hard to negotiate condom use | ||||||
| No | 91 (48.2) | 98 (51.8) | 6.09 (0.014) | 131 (69.3) | 58 (30.7) | 0.47 (0.491) |
| Yes | 38 (33.6) | 75 (66.4) | 74 (65.5) | 39 (34.5) | ||
| Inconsistent condom use | ||||||
| No | 77 (38.5) | 123 (61.5) | 4.29 (0.038) | 132 (66.0) | 68 (34.0) | 0.96 (0.327) |
| Yes | 52 (51.0) | 50 (49.0) | 73 (71.6) | 29 (28.4) | ||
| Report to dislike condoms | ||||||
| No | 107 (43.3) | 140 (56.7) | 0.48 (0.488) | 175 (70.8) | 72 (29.2) | 6.75 (0.009) |
| Yes | 19 (38.0) | 31 (62.0) | 26 (52.0) | 24 (48.0) | ||
| Report strong adherence to antibiotics | ||||||
| No | 115 (44.2) | 145 (55.8) | 1.75 (0.185) | 186 (71.5) | 74 (28.5) | 11.47 (0.001) |
| Yes | 14 (33.3) | 28 (66.7) | 19 (45.3) | 23 (54.7) | ||
| More than one current sexual partner | ||||||
| No | 89 (48.4) | 95 (51.6) | 6.15 (0.013) | 121 (65.8) | 63 (34.2) | 0.97 (0.325) |
| Yes | 40 (33.9) | 78 (66.1) | 84 (71.2) | 34 (28.8) | ||
| Partner has multiple partners or unsure | ||||||
| No | 65 (52.8) | 58 (47.2) | 8.70 (0.003) | 92 (74.8) | 31 (25.2) | 4.55 (0.033) |
| Yes | 64 (35.7) | 115 (64.3) | 113 (63.1) | 66 (36.9) | ||
| Had STIs in past 12 months or unsure | ||||||
| No | 111 (48.5) | 118 (51.5) | 14.42 (<0.001) | 155 (67.7) | 74 (32.3) | 0.01 (0.936) |
| Yes | 15 (22.4) | 52 (77.6) | 45 (67.2) | 22 (32.8) | ||
*** p < 0.01
** p < 0.05
* p < 0.1
Observed n ranged from 296 to 302 due to item-specific missing values.
Indirect effects and total effects for multivariate mediation analysis of willingness to use PrEP (n = 282).
| Indirect Effect | Direct Effect | Total Effect | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect Size | BC Bootstrap CI | Effect Size | Effect Size | BC Bootstrap CI | |||||
| (a) | (p = ) | (b) | (p = ) | (c’) | (p = ) | (c) = (a)*(b)+(c’) | |||
| → Perceived HIV risk | → Willing to use PrEP | Willing to use PrEP | Willing to use PrEP | ||||||
| 0.1154 | 0.041 | ||||||||
| Ever been forced to have sex | 0.1103 | 0.082 | -0.0006–0.0410 | -0.0158 | 0.790 | -0.0031 | -0.1190–0.1086 | ||
| Have friends who were beaten by male partner | 0.0805 | 0.168 | -0.0008–0.0352 | 0.1499 | 0.009 | 0.1592 | 0.0345–0.2707 | ||
| Have friends who have had sex for money | -0.0002 | 0.996 | -0.0192–0.0142 | 0.0901 | 0.144 | 0.0901 | -0.0342–0.2165 | ||
| Find it hard to negotiate condom use | 0.0707 | 0.217 | -0.0024–0.0328 | 0.0049 | 0.931 | 0.0131 | -0.1093–0.1191 | ||
| Inconsistent condom use | -0.0542 | 0.384 | -0.0281–0.0066 | 0.0235 | 0.693 | 0.0173 | -0.1123–0.1324 | ||
| Report to dislike condoms | 0.0244 | 0.740 | -0.0126–0.0284 | 0.1916 | 0.010 | 0.1944 | 0.0594–0.3678 | ||
| Report strong adherence to antibiotics | 0.0150 | 0.851 | -0.0162–0.0294 | 0.2308 | 0.004 | 0.2326 | 0.0514–0.3793 | ||
| More than one current sexual partner | 0.1614 | 0.007 | 0.0022–0.0512 | -0.0547 | 0.347 | -0.0362 | -0.1513–0.0781 | ||
| Partner has multiple partners or unsure | 0.1776 | 0.002 | 0.0723–0.2970 | 0.0921 | 0.114 | 0.1125 | -0.0163–0.2253 | ||
| Had STIs in past 12 months or unsure | 0.1655 | 0.009 | 0.0013–0.0544 | -0.0843 | 0.202 | -0.0653 | -0.2062–0.0575 | ||
n = 282 (variations across analyses due to missing data on covariates and mediators variables). BC Bootstrap CI = bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals.
This analysis reports the effects of the compound path from the variables on the left-hand side to the outcome variable Willingness to use PrEP through the mediator Perceived HIV risk.
*** p<0.01,
** p<0.05,
* p<0.1