Caroline G Coleman1, Jessica M Sales2, Cam Escoffery2, Kaitlin N Piper2, Leah Powell2, Anandi N Sheth3,4,5. 1. School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 2. Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. ansheth@emory.edu. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. ansheth@emory.edu. 5. Grady Health System, Atlanta, GA, USA. ansheth@emory.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is underutilized by US women. Cost and resource concerns are barriers to PrEP delivery in settings that see men. Family planning clinics may be ideal PrEP delivery settings for women, but as they are not uniform in their clinical services, cost and resource concerns may vary. OBJECTIVE: We examined factors that influence perceptions of costs and resources related to PrEP delivery in Title X-funded family planning clinics in Southern states, which overlaps with high HIV-burden areas. DESIGN: We conducted a web-based survey among a convenience sample of clinicians and administrators of Title X clinics across 18 Southern states (DHHS regions III, IV, VI). We compared cost- and resource-related survey items and other clinic- and county-level variables between clinics by whether their clinics also provided other primary care services. We analyzed interviews for cost and resource themes. PARTICIPANTS: Title X clinic staff in the South. KEY RESULTS: Among 283 unique clinics, a greater proportion of clinics that also provided primary care currently provided PrEP compared with those that did not provide primary care (27.8% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.06), but this difference was not statistically significant. Among 414 respondents in clinics that were not providing PrEP, those in clinics with primary care services were more likely to respond that they had the necessary financial resources (p < 0.01) and staffing (p < 0.01) for PrEP implementation compared to those without primary care services. In interviews, respondents differed on concerns about costs of labs and staffing based on whether their clinic had concomitant primary care services or not. CONCLUSIONS: Among publicly funded Southern family planning clinics, current PrEP provision was higher among clinics with concomitant primary care. Among clinics not providing PrEP, those with concomitant primary care services have lower perceived cost and resource barriers and therefore may be optimal for expanding PrEP among women.
BACKGROUND: HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is underutilized by US women. Cost and resource concerns are barriers to PrEP delivery in settings that see men. Family planning clinics may be ideal PrEP delivery settings for women, but as they are not uniform in their clinical services, cost and resource concerns may vary. OBJECTIVE: We examined factors that influence perceptions of costs and resources related to PrEP delivery in Title X-funded family planning clinics in Southern states, which overlaps with high HIV-burden areas. DESIGN: We conducted a web-based survey among a convenience sample of clinicians and administrators of Title X clinics across 18 Southern states (DHHS regions III, IV, VI). We compared cost- and resource-related survey items and other clinic- and county-level variables between clinics by whether their clinics also provided other primary care services. We analyzed interviews for cost and resource themes. PARTICIPANTS: Title X clinic staff in the South. KEY RESULTS: Among 283 unique clinics, a greater proportion of clinics that also provided primary care currently provided PrEP compared with those that did not provide primary care (27.8% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.06), but this difference was not statistically significant. Among 414 respondents in clinics that were not providing PrEP, those in clinics with primary care services were more likely to respond that they had the necessary financial resources (p < 0.01) and staffing (p < 0.01) for PrEP implementation compared to those without primary care services. In interviews, respondents differed on concerns about costs of labs and staffing based on whether their clinic had concomitant primary care services or not. CONCLUSIONS: Among publicly funded Southern family planning clinics, current PrEP provision was higher among clinics with concomitant primary care. Among clinics not providing PrEP, those with concomitant primary care services have lower perceived cost and resource barriers and therefore may be optimal for expanding PrEP among women.
Authors: Julia L Marcus; Jonathan E Volk; Jess Pinder; Albert Y Liu; Oliver Bacon; C Bradley Hare; Stephanie E Cohen Journal: Curr HIV/AIDS Rep Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 5.071
Authors: Aaron J Siegler; Farah Mouhanna; Robertino Mera Giler; Kevin Weiss; Elizabeth Pembleton; Jodie Guest; Jeb Jones; Amanda Castel; Howa Yeung; Michael Kramer; Scott McCallister; Patrick S Sullivan Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Anar S Patel; Lakshmi Goparaju; Jessica M Sales; Cyra Christina Mehta; Oni J Blackstock; Dominika Seidman; Igho Ofotokun; Mirjam-Colette Kempf; Margaret A Fischl; Elizabeth T Golub; Adaora A Adimora; Audrey L French; Jack DeHovitz; Gina Wingood; Seble Kassaye; Anandi N Sheth Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Kerry A Thomson; Jared M Baeten; Nelly R Mugo; Linda-Gail Bekker; Connie L Celum; Renee Heffron Journal: Curr Opin HIV AIDS Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.283
Authors: Jessica M Sales; Cam Escoffery; Sophia A Hussen; Lisa B Haddad; Micah McCumber; Evan Kwiatkowski; Teresa Filipowicz; Maria Sanchez; Matthew A Psioda; Anandi N Sheth Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2021-01-23
Authors: Rupa R Patel; Leandro Mena; Amy Nunn; Timothy McBride; Laura C Harrison; Catherine E Oldenburg; Jingxia Liu; Kenneth H Mayer; Philip A Chan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jessica M Sales; Cam Escoffery; Sophia A Hussen; Lisa B Haddad; Ashley Phillips; Teresa Filipowicz; Maria Sanchez; Micah McCumber; Betty Rupp; Evan Kwiatkowski; Matthew A Psioda; Anandi N Sheth Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2019-05-06
Authors: Amy K Johnson; Maria Pyra; Samantha Devlin; A Ziggy Uvin; Shemeka Irby; Cori Blum; Eric Stewart; Lisa Masinter; Sadia Haider; Lisa R Hirschhorn; Jessica P Ridgway Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Alina Cernasev; Crystal Walker; Caylin Kerr; Rachel E Barenie; Drew Armstrong; Jay Golden Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-10 Impact factor: 4.614