#PrEP4Love: success and stigma following release of the first sex-positive PrEP public health campaign.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective yet under-utilised method for preventing HIV transmission in high-risk groups. Despite ongoing social marketing to increase PrEP awareness, few studies have evaluated public responses. This paper contextualises negative responses to Chicago's PrEP4Love campaign. In February 2016, a sex-positive ad campaign called PrEP4Love was launched online and throughout public spaces in Chicago. A gender and sexuality inclusive campaign, PrEP4Love is intended to be culturally responsive and sex positive, while retaining a focus on risk reduction. Advertisements prominently feature Black sexual minority men, and Black transgender women, and were strategically placed in diverse Chicago neighbourhoods. In response, there were 212 new callers to the PrEPLine during the two-month study period. Negative responses were concerned with: negatively depicting Black homosexuality (4), general anti-LGBTQ comments (7), adverse effects on children (6), sexually explicit nature (5), and general stigmatisation of racial minorities (4). Discussion focuses on sex-positive frameworks, normalising intimacy, stigma and historical mistrust of medical and pharmaceutical institutions, and the social meanings of biomedical prevention technologies (e.g. PrEP) in relation to dominant norms of sexuality and gender. This study is the first to investigate public responses to a sex-positive PrEP campaign. More studies of PrEP social marketing are needed to evaluate targeted public health campaigns to guide future PrEP promotion strategies.

Expanding Knowledge About Implementation of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP): A Methodological Review.

Methodological limitations in PrEP implementation studies may explain why PrEP implementation is lagging. This methodological review provides a description and critique of the methods used to identify barriers to PrEP implementation in the United States (2007-18). For each selected article, we provide: (1) research questions; (2) measures; (3) design; (4) sample (size and type); and (5) theoretical orientation. Among 79 articles which identified knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral and social/structural barriers to PrEP implementation, 51 (65%) were quantitative; 25 (32%) qualitative; and 3 (4%) were mixed-methods; overall, just one-half described a conceptual approach. About two-thirds of articles were conducted with patients and one-third with healthcare providers. Our review reveals a paucity of longitudinal, mixed-methods, and ethnographic/observational research and guiding theoretical frameworks; thus, the applicability of results are limited. We recommend that interventions aimed at PrEP implementation address barriers situated at multiple ecological domains, and thus improve PrEP access, uptake, and adherence.

Improving PrEP Implementation Through Multilevel Interventions: A Synthesis of the Literature.

There are many challenges to accessing PrEP and thus low uptake in the United States. This review (2007-2017) of PrEP implementation identified barriers to PrEP and interventions to match those barriers. The final set of articles (n = 47) included content on cognitive aspects of HIV service providers and individuals at risk for infection, reviews, and case studies. Cognitive barriers and interventions regarding patients and providers included knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about PrEP. The "purview paradox" was identified as a key barrier-HIV specialists often do not see HIV-negative patients, while primary care physicians, who often see uninfected patients, are not trained to provide PrEP. Healthcare systems barriers included lack of communication about, funding for, and access to PrEP. The intersection between PrEP-stigma, HIV-stigma, transphobia, homophobia, and disparities across gender, racial, and ethnic groups were identified; but few interventions addressed these barriers. We recommend multilevel interventions targeting barriers at multiple socioecological domains.

"I do the she and her": A qualitative exploration of HIV care providers' considerations of trans women in gender-specific HIV care.

OBJECTIVES: Women of all genders, including cisgender (cis) and transgender (trans) women, experience social and structural drivers of HIV inequities and pervasive barriers to HIV care. Yet, little is known about how HIV care providers address gender diversity in health care. Through a critical feminist lens informed by intersectionality theory, medical anthropology, and critical sociology, we explored (1) how do HIV care providers describe women living with HIV's care needs and barriers; (2) what are their perspectives on optimal HIV care for women; and (3) to what extent do these conceptualizations include/exclude trans women. METHODS: Utilizing a community-based exploratory qualitative study design, we conducted 60-90 minute semi-structured individual interviews from March 2019-April 2020 with eight HIV care providers (n = 4 social service providers; n = 4 physicians) practicing across seven counties representative of rural, suburban, and urban Michigan, United States. Data were analyzed utilizing a reflexive thematic approach. RESULTS: Three overarching themes emerged: (1) Emphasis on (different) clinical needs: key considerations in cis and trans women's HIV care; (2) Recognition of the structural: barriers to HIV care affecting women of all genders; and (3) Proposed solutions: piecing together individual, social, and organizational interventions to increase access to HIV care that may benefit women living with HIV of all genders but are disproportionately framed as being for cis women. While HIV care providers recognized both cis and trans women living with HIV's clinical care needs and structural barriers to care, they rarely envisioned optimal HIV care inclusive of gender affirmation and structural interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that HIV care providers can avoid reducing gender to biology and making assumptions about reproductive care needs, endocrinological care needs, caregiving responsibilities, and other life circumstances; provide gender-affirming medical care; and address structural barriers to HIV care to enhance intersectional and structurally focused gender-affirming-that is, trans-inclusive-women-centered HIV care.