Injectable Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention: Perspectives on the Benefits and Barriers from Gay, Bisexual, and Queer Men and Health System Stakeholders in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One hope surrounding long-acting HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is reaching new users who could most benefit, as well as improving the experiences of oral PrEP users who may desire to switch modalities. Gay, bisexual, queer, and other men who have sex with men (GBQM) continue to make up over half of new HIV diagnoses in Canada, and oral PrEP uptake has plateaued among this population. Approval of injectable PrEP is anticipated, but there is a paucity of research to inform health promotion and implementation. Between June and October 2021, we conducted 22 in-depth interviews with GBQM oral PrEP users and non-PrEP users living in Ontario, Canada. We also conducted small focus groups or individual interviews with 20 key stakeholders (health care providers, public health officials, community-based organization staff). Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed in NVivo using thematic analysis. Only about one-third of GBQM had heard of injectable PrEP. Many PrEP users perceived greater convenience, adherence, and confidentiality with injectable PrEP. Some PrEP users did not anticipate switching because of needle discomfort or feeling more "in control" with oral PrEP. None of the non-PrEP users said that injectable PrEP would make them start PrEP. Injectable PrEP may offer additional convenience for GBQM; however, it did not appear to affect participants' PrEP decision-making significantly. Stakeholders noted that injectable PrEP may improve access, support adherence, and benefit marginalized groups. Some clinicians expressed concerns about the time/personnel required to make injectable PrEP available. System-level challenges in implementing injectable PrEP, including cost, must also be addressed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".