Acceptability of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) and Implementation Challenges Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in India: A Qualitative Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored the acceptability of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among MSM in India, and identified facilitators and barriers to future PrEP uptake. In 2014, we conducted 10 focus groups (n=61) among a purposive sample of diverse MSM recruited through community-based organizations in Chennai and Mumbai, and 10 key informant interviews with community leaders and health care providers. Participants' mean age was 26.1 years (SD 4.8); 62% completed secondary education, and 42% engaged in sex work. No focus group participants had heard of PrEP, but once explained, most reported they would likely use it. PrEP was alternately perceived as a 'back-up plan', a condom substitute, or a burden with concurrent condom use. Facilitators were potential for covert use, sex without condoms, and anxiety-less sex. Potential barriers emerged around stigma associated with PrEP use, fear of disclosures to one's family, wife, or male steady partner, and being labeled as HIV-positive or promiscuous by peers. Preferences emerged for intermittent rather than daily PrEP use, injectable PrEP, and free or subsidized access through community organizations or government hospitals. Key informants expressed additional concerns about risk compensation, non-adherence, and impact on ART availability for treatment. Demonstration projects are needed in India to support PrEP implementation tailored for at-risk MSM. Educational interventions for MSM should address concerns about PrEP effectiveness, side effects, and mitigate risk compensation. Community engagement may facilitate broad acceptability and challenge stigma around PrEP use. Importantly, provision of free or subsidized PrEP is necessary to making implementation feasible among low socioeconomic status MSM in India.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".