Sarita Sonalkar1, Arden McAllister1, Corinne Kete1, Jessica Fishman2,3, Alhambra Frarey1, William R Short4, Courtney A Schreiber1, Anne Teitelman5. 1. Division of Family Planning, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, Annenberg School for Communication, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Leonard Davis Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Division of Infectious Diseases, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; and. 5. School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family planning and abortion clinics routinely address sexual health. We sought to evaluate implementation outcomes of an HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) care strategy for patients seeking management of induced abortion and pregnancy loss. SETTING: Single-center, urban, academic, hospital-based family planning service. METHODS: We used a multifaceted implementation strategy directed toward family planning providers comprised of educational sessions, an electronic medical record-prompted verbal assessment of HIV risk, electronic medical record shortcuts for PrEP prescription, and support of a PrEP navigator. We assessed penetration of the intervention by calculating the penetration of a PrEP offer, measured as the proportion of encounters in which PrEP was offered to PrEP-eligible individuals. We evaluated feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the intervention using belief elicitation interviews with providers. RESULTS: From November 2018 to April 2019, the proportion of PrEP eligible patients who were offered PrEP, was 87.9% (29/33). Providers found the intervention acceptable and appropriate, but reported barriers including time constraints, and disappointment if patients did not adhere to PrEP. Providers liked that PrEP provision in abortion care settings felt innovative, and that they could contribute to HIV prevention. CONCLUSION: Family planning providers in an academic center found HIV risk assessment and PrEP provision to be feasible, acceptable, and appropriate. Further research should evaluate implementation outcomes of PrEP care strategies in additional abortion care contexts, including clinics offering reproductive health care outside of academia.
BACKGROUND: Family planning and abortion clinics routinely address sexual health. We sought to evaluate implementation outcomes of an HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) care strategy for patients seeking management of induced abortion and pregnancy loss. SETTING: Single-center, urban, academic, hospital-based family planning service. METHODS: We used a multifaceted implementation strategy directed toward family planning providers comprised of educational sessions, an electronic medical record-prompted verbal assessment of HIV risk, electronic medical record shortcuts for PrEP prescription, and support of a PrEP navigator. We assessed penetration of the intervention by calculating the penetration of a PrEP offer, measured as the proportion of encounters in which PrEP was offered to PrEP-eligible individuals. We evaluated feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the intervention using belief elicitation interviews with providers. RESULTS: From November 2018 to April 2019, the proportion of PrEP eligible patients who were offered PrEP, was 87.9% (29/33). Providers found the intervention acceptable and appropriate, but reported barriers including time constraints, and disappointment if patients did not adhere to PrEP. Providers liked that PrEP provision in abortion care settings felt innovative, and that they could contribute to HIV prevention. CONCLUSION: Family planning providers in an academic center found HIV risk assessment and PrEP provision to be feasible, acceptable, and appropriate. Further research should evaluate implementation outcomes of PrEP care strategies in additional abortion care contexts, including clinics offering reproductive health care outside of academia.
Authors: Sarah K Calabrese; Tiara C Willie; Rachel W Galvao; Mehrit Tekeste; John F Dovidio; Cara B Safon; Oni Blackstock; Tamara Taggart; Clair Kaplan; Abigail Caldwell; Trace S Kershaw Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Douglas K Owens; Karina W Davidson; Alex H Krist; Michael J Barry; Michael Cabana; Aaron B Caughey; Susan J Curry; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Lori Pbert; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Chien-Wen Tseng; John B Wong Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hsiu Wu; Maria C B Mendoza; Ya-Lin A Huang; Tameka Hayes; Dawn K Smith; Karen W Hoover Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Sarita Sonalkar; William R Short; Arden McAllister; Corinne Kete; Leah Ingeno; Jessica Fishman; Helen C Koenig; Courtney A Schreiber; Anne M Teitelman Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2022-01-05
Authors: Will Garner; Brigid M Wilson; Lauren Beste; Marissa Maier; Michael E Ohl; Puja Van Epps Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Deepti Chittamuru; Victoria Frye; Beryl A Koblin; Bridgette Brawner; Hong-Van Tieu; Annet Davis; Anne Teitelman Journal: Stigma Health Date: 2019-10-31
Authors: Byron J Powell; Thomas J Waltz; Matthew J Chinman; Laura J Damschroder; Jeffrey L Smith; Monica M Matthieu; Enola K Proctor; JoAnn E Kirchner Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 7.327