Kathryn Macapagal1,2, Mara Nery-Hurwit1,2, Margaret Matson1,2, Shariell Crosby1,2, George J Greene1. 1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University; 625 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. 2. Institute for Sexual and Gender Minority Health and Wellbeing, Northwestern University; 625 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sexual and gender minority (SGM) adolescents assigned male at birth who have sex with male partners are at increased risk for HIV. Daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available for minor adolescents in the United States, who may have difficulty with adherence. Adolescents' perspectives toward emerging PrEP delivery methods that would not require daily pill-taking have not been well-explored. METHODS: We conducted online surveys and focus groups in November 2018-February 2019 with 59 SGM adolescents assigned male at birth who reported sex with or attraction to male partners. Questions assessed their perspectives on and preferences for biomedical (on-demand, injection, implant) and non-biomedical HIV prevention options (condoms). Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Of all prevention options, the implant and condoms were rated highest, and participants preferred the implant over other biomedical options. Convenience, duration, and ease of access played important roles in adolescents' preferences. Parents were viewed as a barrier to taking PrEP regardless of delivery method due to their role in adolescents' ability to access healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: SGM adolescents are interested in long-acting PrEP, yet also perceive substantial obstacles to using biomedical prevention that reflect adolescents' developmental contexts. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: State laws expanding adolescents' access to HIV preventive services, sex education inclusive of PrEP information, and parent- and provider-initiated PrEP conversations can reduce barriers regardless of PrEP delivery method. Research to accelerate the availability of long-acting implants for adolescents is needed.
INTRODUCTION: Sexual and gender minority (SGM) adolescents assigned male at birth who have sex with male partners are at increased risk for HIV. Daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available for minor adolescents in the United States, who may have difficulty with adherence. Adolescents' perspectives toward emerging PrEP delivery methods that would not require daily pill-taking have not been well-explored. METHODS: We conducted online surveys and focus groups in November 2018-February 2019 with 59 SGM adolescents assigned male at birth who reported sex with or attraction to male partners. Questions assessed their perspectives on and preferences for biomedical (on-demand, injection, implant) and non-biomedical HIV prevention options (condoms). Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Of all prevention options, the implant and condoms were rated highest, and participants preferred the implant over other biomedical options. Convenience, duration, and ease of access played important roles in adolescents' preferences. Parents were viewed as a barrier to taking PrEP regardless of delivery method due to their role in adolescents' ability to access healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: SGM adolescents are interested in long-acting PrEP, yet also perceive substantial obstacles to using biomedical prevention that reflect adolescents' developmental contexts. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: State laws expanding adolescents' access to HIV preventive services, sex education inclusive of PrEP information, and parent- and provider-initiated PrEP conversations can reduce barriers regardless of PrEP delivery method. Research to accelerate the availability of long-acting implants for adolescents is needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
HIV; adolescent behavior; pre-exposure prophylaxis; sexual and gender minorities; sexual behavior
Authors: Robert M Grant; Javier R Lama; Peter L Anderson; Vanessa McMahan; Albert Y Liu; Lorena Vargas; Pedro Goicochea; Martín Casapía; Juan Vicente Guanira-Carranza; Maria E Ramirez-Cardich; Orlando Montoya-Herrera; Telmo Fernández; Valdilea G Veloso; Susan P Buchbinder; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Mauro Schechter; Linda-Gail Bekker; Kenneth H Mayer; Esper Georges Kallás; K Rivet Amico; Kathleen Mulligan; Lane R Bushman; Robert J Hance; Carmela Ganoza; Patricia Defechereux; Brian Postle; Furong Wang; J Jeff McConnell; Jia-Hua Zheng; Jeanny Lee; James F Rooney; Howard S Jaffe; Ana I Martinez; David N Burns; David V Glidden Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Celia B Fisher; Miriam R Arbeit; Melissa S Dumont; Kathryn Macapagal; Brian Mustanski Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Christine Tagliaferri Rael; Michelle Martinez; Rebecca Giguere; Walter Bockting; Caitlin MacCrate; Will Mellman; Pablo Valente; George J Greene; Susan G Sherman; Katherine H A Footer; Richard T D'Aquila; Alex Carballo-Diéguez; Thomas J Hope Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2020-05
Authors: Estelle Ouellet; Madeleine Durand; Jason R Guertin; Jacques LeLorier; Cécile L Tremblay Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol Date: 2015 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.471