Understanding HIV Care Provider Attitudes Regarding Intentions to Prescribe PrEP

Abstract

Introduction: Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a promising approach to reducing HIV incidence. So, garnering the support of HIV providers, who are most familiar with antiretrovirals and likely to encounter patients in HIV serodiscordant relationships, to scale-up PrEP implementation is essential. We sought to determine whether certain subgroups of HIV providers were more likely to intend to prescribe PrEP.

Methods: Surveys were administered to HIV providers in Miami, Florida and Washington, District of Columbia. Composite scores were developed to measure PrEP knowledge, experience, and likelihood of prescribing. Latent class analysis was used to stratify provider attitudes toward PrEP.

Results: Among 142 HIV providers, 73.2% had cared for more than 20 HIV-infected patients in the previous 3 months; 17% had ever prescribed PrEP. Latent class analysis identified 2 classes of providers (entropy, 0.904); class 1 (n = 95) found PrEP less effective and perceived barriers to prescribing it; class 2 (n = 47) perceived PrEP as moderately effective and perceived fewer barriers to prescribing it. Compared with class 2, class 1 had significantly less experience with PrEP delivery (t(22.7) = 2.88, P = 0.009) and was significantly less likely to intend to prescribe to patients with multiple sex partners (20% vs. 43%, P = 0.04) and those with a drug use history (7% vs. 24%, P = 0.001).

Conclusions: Although most HIV providers found PrEP to be effective, those considering it less effective had limited knowledge and experience with PrEP and had lesser intentions to prescribe. Provider training regarding whom should receive PrEP and addressing potential barriers to PrEP provision are needed if this HIV prevention method is to be optimized.

Figure 1. Probability of Agreement with Statements by Latent Class Analysis Groups

This figure shows the probability and 95% confidence interval of either agreeing or strongly agreeing with each statement by the two classes of respondents. Class 1 consisted of 95 respondents and Class 2 of 47 respondents. Class 1 found PrEP less effective and perceived barriers to prescribing it whereas Class 2 perceived PrEP as moderately effective and perceived fewer barriers to prescribing it.