Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jun;21(6):e25147.
doi: 10.1002/jia2.25147.

Prevention paradox: Medical students are less inclined to prescribe HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis for patients in highest need

Affiliations

Prevention paradox: Medical students are less inclined to prescribe HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis for patients in highest need

Sarah K Calabrese et al. J Int AIDS Soc. 2018 Jun.

Abstract

Introduction: Despite healthcare providers' growing awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), prescription rates remain low. PrEP is an efficacious HIV prevention strategy recommended for use with condoms but still protective in their absence. Concern about the impact of PrEP on condom use and other risk behaviour is, nonetheless, among the barriers to prescription commonly reported. To understand the implications of this concern for PrEP access, we examined how medical students' willingness to prescribe PrEP varied by patients' condom use and partnering practices. We also assessed the perceived acceptability of various reasons for condom discontinuation with PrEP.

Methods: An online survey was distributed to 854 medical students in the Northeastern US in 2015. Participants (n = 111) were surveyed about their willingness to prescribe PrEP for each of six male patients who systematically differed in their reported condom use (sustained use, sustained nonuse, or discontinuation with PrEP) and partnering practices (single male partner with untreated HIV or multiple male partners of unknown HIV status). Participants also reported perceived acceptability of four reasons for condom discontinuation: pleasure, sexual functioning, intimacy, and conception.

Results: Willingness to prescribe PrEP was inconsistent with patient risk: When the patient used condoms and planned to sustain condom use, most participants were willing to prescribe PrEP - 93% if the patient had a single partner and 86% if the patient had multiple partners. Fewer were willing to prescribe if the patient did not use condoms and planned to sustain nonuse (53% and 45%, respectively) or used condoms but planned to discontinue use (27% and 28%). Significantly fewer participants were willing to prescribe for a patient with multiple partners versus a single partner when the patient reported sustained condom use or sustained condom nonuse. The number of participants who were willing to prescribe was similarly low for a patient with multiple partners versus a single partner when the patient reported that he planned to discontinue condom use. More participants accepted a patient discontinuing condoms for conception (69%) than for intimacy (23%), pleasure (14%), or sexual functioning (13%).

Conclusion: Medical students' clinical judgments were misaligned with patient risk and suggest misconceptions or personal values may undermine provision of optimal HIV prevention services.

Keywords: HIV; health personnel; healthcare disparities; pre-exposure prophylaxis; prescriptions; sexual minorities.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Medical students’ willingness to prescribe pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for a hypothetical male patient. Patient condom use and partnering practices were systematically varied using a 3 × 2 within‐subjects design such that every participant rated six patients with differing combinations of condom use and partnering practices. AORs represent the effect of partnering practice on willingness to prescribe within each condom use category, adjusting for relevant background characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and prior PrEP education).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Fonner VA, Dalglish SL, Kennedy CE, Baggaley R, O'Reilly KR, Koechlin FM, et al. Effectiveness and safety of oral HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for all populations: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. AIDS. 2016;30:1973–83. - PMC - PubMed
    1. US Public Health Service . Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States – 2017 update: a clinical practice guideline. 2018. [cited 2018 May 10]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/prep/cdc-hiv-prep-guidelines-2017.pdf
    1. Adams LM, Balderson B, Packett BJ II, Brown K, Catz SL. Providers’ perspectives on prescribing pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention. HIV Spec. 2015;7:18–25.
    1. Blackstock OJ, Moore BA, Berkenblit GV, Calabrese SK, Cunningham CO, Fiellin DA, et al. A cross‐sectional online survey of HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis adoption among primary care physicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32:62–70. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Doblecki‐Lewis S, Jones D. Community federally qualified health centers as homes for HIV preexposure prophylaxis: perspectives from South Florida. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2016;15:522–8. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources