[Discrepancy between behavioral-indicated and perceived candidacy for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in Chengdu, China].

H Lin, J H Li, X Yang, X T Chen, Y H Shi, C Chang, Y T Hao, W N Cao
Author Information
  1. H Lin: Department of Social Medicine and Health Education, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China.
  2. J H Li: Department of Medical Statistics, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
  3. X Yang: Department of Medical Statistics, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
  4. X T Chen: Department of Medical Statistics, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
  5. Y H Shi: Department of Social Medicine and Health Education, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China.
  6. C Chang: Department of Social Medicine and Health Education, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China.
  7. Y T Hao: Department of Social Medicine and Health Education, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China.
  8. W N Cao: Department of Social Medicine and Health Education, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore the discrepancy between behavioral-indicated candidacy and perceived candidacy (behavioral-perceived gap) and its associated factors of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men (MSM), so as to identify the focus population of PrEP interventions and to design and implement targeted interventions.
METHODS: We recruited a sample of 622 HIV-negative MSM who were regular clients of a community-based organization located in Chengdu, China, from November to December 2021. A cross-sectional questionnaire was used to collect the participants' information on social demographics, PrEP-related knowledge and cognitions, and risk behaviors. In this study, behaviorally eligible for PrEP was defined as performing at least one type of high-risk behavior in the past six months, including inconsistent condom use, sex with an HIV-positive partner, confirmed sexual transmitted infections (STI) diagnosis, substance use, and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) experience. Logistic regression models were fitted, and multivariate analyses were adjusted for social demographics.
RESULTS: Among the 622 eligible participants, 52.6% (327/622) were classified as behaviorally eligible for PrEP. Only 37.9% (124/327) of the participants perceived themselves as appropriate candidates for PrEP and 62.1% (203/207) had discrepancy between behavioral-indicated and perceived candidacy. 85.9% (281/327) had heard of PrEP, and 14.2% (40/281) accessed PrEP information through health care providers. Of the 327 participants eligible for behavior-indicated PrEP use, about half (47.1%) knew how to obtain PrEP medication and 33.0% had a professional PrEP counseling experience. The majority (93.3%) had no or few friends using PrEP. 54.1% scored eight or above in PrEP knowledge level. 66.7% reported having two or more sexual partners in the past six months. After adjusting for age and recruitment channel, we found six factors that were associated with perceived candidacy for PrEP, including PEP use [adjusted odds ratio ()=2.20; 95% confidence interval (): 1.33-3.63], PrEP availability (=1.69; 95%: 1.06-2.68), a greater number of PrEP-using friends (=4.92; 95%: 1.77-13.65), PrEP know-ledge (=2.21; 95%: 1.38-3.56), multiple sexual partnership (=1.77; 95%: 1.07-2.94), and perceiving a higher risk of HIV infection (=4.02; 95% 1.73-9.32). Substance use during sex and PrEP information channel were not statistically associated with this beha-vioral-perceived gap.
CONCLUSION: We observed a high discrepancy between behavioral-indicated and perceived candidacy for PrEP among Chengdu MSM in China. Future PrEP implementation efforts should be made in skills training in assessing HIV infection risk, increasing PrEP knowledge, providing professional PrEP counselling, and fostering PrEP support environment.

Keywords

References

  1. PLoS One. 2019 Mar 29;14(3):e0213740 [PMID: 30925582]
  2. JAMA. 2019 Jun 11;321(22):2214-2230 [PMID: 31184746]
  3. Eval Program Plann. 2022 Feb;90:101989 [PMID: 34419307]
  4. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2019 Mar;33(3):112-119 [PMID: 30844305]
  5. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jun 04;18(11): [PMID: 34199829]
  6. Sex Health. 2022 Dec;19(6):501-508 [PMID: 35919968]
  7. Int J STD AIDS. 2022 Aug;33(9):837-846 [PMID: 35786144]
  8. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009 Jul 1;51(3):349-55 [PMID: 19387357]
  9. BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Aug 15;19(1):721 [PMID: 31416439]
  10. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2022 Oct 10;43(10):1658-1665 [PMID: 36456500]
  11. AIDS Behav. 2019 Oct;23(10):2784-2794 [PMID: 31280397]
  12. AIDS Care. 2016 Nov;28(11):1378-85 [PMID: 27136725]
  13. Cult Health Sex. 2022 Mar;24(3):301-314 [PMID: 33196378]
  14. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e50061 [PMID: 23166819]
  15. Science. 2012 Jul 6;337(6090):49-53 [PMID: 22767921]
  16. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2020 Mar 10;41(3):343-348 [PMID: 32294832]
  17. AIDS Behav. 2022 Jun;26(6):1793-1807 [PMID: 34817766]
  18. AIDS Res Ther. 2023 Feb 13;20(1):11 [PMID: 36782323]
  19. AIDS Care. 2019 Aug;31(8):1026-1034 [PMID: 31046414]
  20. Ann Behav Med. 2015 Apr;49(2):177-86 [PMID: 25124457]
  21. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 May 12;7(5):ofaa165 [PMID: 32494585]
  22. AIDS Care. 2019 May;31(5):536-544 [PMID: 30304942]
  23. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007 May 1;45(1):85-92 [PMID: 17325605]
  24. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2017 Oct 10;38(10):1426-1430 [PMID: 29060993]
  25. AIDS Behav. 2018 Jul;22(7):2296-2311 [PMID: 29470808]
  26. AIDS Behav. 2017 Apr;21(4):1183-1207 [PMID: 27125244]
  27. AIDS Behav. 2019 Jul;23(7):1771-1779 [PMID: 30250992]
  28. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017 Mar 1;74(3):285-292 [PMID: 28187084]
  29. Biosci Trends. 2016 May 23;10(2):113-9 [PMID: 27052151]
  30. Sex Res Social Policy. 2022 Sep;19(3):1058-1068 [PMID: 36387840]
  31. Prev Sci. 2019 Oct;20(7):1089-1097 [PMID: 30712223]
  32. JAMA. 2019 Jun 11;321(22):2203-2213 [PMID: 31184747]
  33. Addict Behav. 2013 Mar;38(3):1824-30 [PMID: 23261495]
  34. AIDS Behav. 2018 Nov;22(11):3658-3672 [PMID: 29744767]
  35. AIDS Care. 2016 Aug;28(8):994-9 [PMID: 27055001]

MeSH Term

Male
Humans
Homosexuality, Male
HIV Infections
Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis
HIV
Cross-Sectional Studies
Sexual and Gender Minorities

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0PrEPcandidacyperceived1HIVusebehavioral-indicatedprophylaxismensexeligible95%:discrepancyassociatedamongMSMChengduinformationknowledgerisksixsexualparticipants1%gapfactorspre-exposureinterventions622ChinasocialdemographicsbehaviorallybehaviorpastmonthsincludinginfectionsPEPexperience9%professionalfriendschannel=295%=1=4infectionOBJECTIVE:explorebehavioral-perceivedhumanimmunodeficiencyvirusidentifyfocuspopulationdesignimplementtargetedMETHODS:recruitedsampleHIV-negativeregularclientscommunity-basedorganizationlocatedNovemberDecember2021cross-sectionalquestionnaireusedcollectparticipants'PrEP-relatedcognitionsbehaviorsstudydefinedperformingleastonetypehigh-riskinconsistentcondomHIV-positivepartnerconfirmedtransmittedSTIdiagnosissubstancepost-exposureLogisticregressionmodelsfittedmultivariateanalysesadjustedRESULTS:Among526%327/622classified37124/327appropriatecandidates62203/20785281/327heard142%40/281accessedhealthcareproviders327behavior-indicatedhalf47knewobtainmedication330%counselingmajority933%using54scoredeightlevel667%reportedtwopartnersadjustingagerecruitmentfound[adjustedoddsratio20confidenceinterval:33-363]availability6906-268greaternumberPrEP-using9277-1365know-ledge2138-356multiplepartnership7707-294perceivinghigher0273-932Substancestatisticallybeha-vioral-perceivedCONCLUSION:observedhighFutureimplementationeffortsmadeskillstrainingassessingincreasingprovidingcounsellingfosteringsupportenvironment[DiscrepancyChina]CognitivedissonanceHomosexualitymalePre-exposureRiskperceptionSexual

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.