Project Overview
Black sexual minority men (SMM) are disproportionately affected by HIV and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a medication that reduces HIV acquisition. There is a gap in our understanding of the acceptability of and preference for on-demand and long-acting injectable (LAI) PrEP among PrEP-eligible Black SMM. This study aimed to explore preference for on-demand and LAI-PrEP and reasons for those preferences among HIV-negative Black SMM of different PrEP use profiles (current PrEP users, current non-PrEP users, and PrEP discontinuers).
Data and Data Collection Overview
We conducted two focus group discussions (FGDs) with HIV-negative (current PrEP users, non-PrEP users, and PrEP discontinuers) Black SMM residing in the District of Columbia metropolitan area. We explored acceptability and interest in on-demand and LAI-PrEP and anticipated barriers and facilitators to uptake.
Eligibility criteria for participants included: 1) being 18 years or older, 2) assigned male sex at birth, 3) identify as African American/Black, 4) HIV-negative status, and 5) current residence in the Washington DC metropolitan area. Participants were recruited through flyers and posters to attract clients receiving services at the study site (Us Helping Us, People into Living Inc, Washington DC, outreach events at gay nightclubs, bars, and community events) and word-of-mouth referrals. The FGDs broadly explored motivators for PrEP initiation and adherence, social network composition and influence on PrEP use or lack thereof, and feedback on a planned social network strategy intervention to increase PrEP initiation and adherence among Black SMM. The FGDs were followed by a brief demographic questionnaire.
The data were collected between March 2022 and April 2023. While most FGDs were conducted in person, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some were conducted virtually. First, a rapid HIV test was conducted to confirm HIV negative status for all potential participants. Next, the study goals and objectives, potential harms and benefits due to study participation, and institutional review board contact information were reviewed. Then, the consent to enroll in the study was sought. All study participants provided written informed consent prior to conducting any study procedures. All participants were assigned unique identifier (UID) numbers, and no identifying information was collected to maintain confidentiality. Participants were instructed to verbally state their UID each time they contributed to the conversation, to facilitate attribution of quotes during manuscript development. Interviews were conducted entirely in English, were digitally recorded, and ranged in length from 1-1.5 hours. The interviewers were Master’s and doctoral-level researchers (3 males, 1 female) with over 30 years combined experience working with the target population. Each FGD had between 3-6 individual participants. The FGD interview guides have been included as documentation files. Upon completion of the FGD, participants who were not on PrEP were provided more information about PrEP and linked to the PrEP coordinators at the study site to schedule a PrEP consultation. All study procedures were approved by the Pearl independent institutional review board. Upon completion of the interview, participants were compensated $50 for their time.
The project utilized qualitative content analysis to analyze the transcribed FGDs. First, all study transcripts were reviewed and independently coded data into different NVivo nodes. Data were coded using “open coding”, a process in which additional codes were made as needed throughout the process of reviewing transcripts. After the FGDs were coded, relevant quotes were further refined and organized into broad categories. For these analyses, the project identified themes for the participant responses related to on-demand PrEP and LAI-PrEP.
Selection and Organization of Shared Data
The data files shared here consist of selected excerpts from FGD1 and FGD2, illustrating the main themes and concepts of interest. Full interview transcripts are not shared since the informed consent process did not explicitly discuss such a possibility.
The documentation files shared consist of the focus group guide, the informed consent used in the study, this Data Narrative, and an administrative README file. |
