850. Reasons for not Using PrEP and Actions that May Facilitate PrEP Uptake in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background HIV Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an underutilized intervention to prevent HIV infection in Canada. Known barriers to PrEP uptake include lack of awareness, low HIV risk perception, side effects, PrEP not being publicly funded (which is the case in Ontario) and stigma. We aimed to identify barriers to PrEP use and actions that may facilitate PrEP uptake in Ontario and British Columbia. Methods Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men 19 years or older living in Ontario and British Columbia, Canada, answered a survey between July 2019 and August 2020. Participants who met Canadian PrEP guideline criteria for PrEP and not already using PrEP indicated which barriers were relevant to them and which actions would make them more likely to start PrEP. We used descriptive statistics and tested differences between Ontario and British Columbia using Chi-square tests for proportions and t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables. Results Of 1527 survey responses, 260 (184 in Ontario and 76 in British Columbia) who were never PrEP users and met criteria for PrEP were included. In Ontario, the most common barriers were affordability (43%) and concern about side effects (42%). In British Columbia, the most common reasons were concern about side effects (41%) and not feeling at high enough risk (36%). In Ontario, the actions that would most likely encourage the respondent to start PrEP were short waiting time (63%), the healthcare provider informing about their HIV risk being higher than perceived (62%) and a written step-by-step guide (60%). In British Columbia, the actions that would most likely encourage the respondent to start PrEP were short waiting time (68%), people speaking publicly about PrEP (68%) and their healthcare provider counselling about: their HIV risk being higher than perceived (64%), side effects of PrEP (64%) and about how PrEP works (62%). Table. Top reasons for not using PrEP and top actions that might influence the decision to start PrEP stratified by province. (n= 184 in Ontario, n= 76 in British Columbia). Conclusion Concern about side effects and not feeling at high enough risk were common barriers. Short waiting times may increase PrEP uptake. In Ontario, the findings suggested lack of affordability. In British Columbia, actions involving healthcare providers were valued. Disclosures Kevin Woodward, MD FRCPC, Gilead (Independent Contractor) Darrell Tan, MD PhD, Abbvie (Grant/Research Support)Gilead (Grant/Research Support)GlaxoSmithKline (Scientific Research Study Investigator)ViiV Healthcare (Grant/Research Support)
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».