Healthcare practitioner experiences and willingness to prescribe pre-exposure prophylaxis in the US.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
18
12
2019
accepted:
14
08
2020
entrez:
4
9
2020
pubmed:
4
9
2020
medline:
23
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Less than 10 percent of the more than one million people vulnerable to HIV are using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Practitioners are critical to ensuring the delivery of PrEP across care settings. In this study, we target a group of prescribers focused on providing HIV care and seeking up-to-date information about HIV. We assessed their experiences prescribing PrEP, whether these experiences differed by clinical specialty, and examined associations between willingness to prescribe PrEP as a "best first step" and different hypothetical prescribing scenarios. Between March and May 2015, we circulated a paper survey to 954 participants ((652 of whom met our inclusion criteria of being independent prescribers and 519 of those (80%) responded to the survey)) at continuing medical education advanced-level HIV courses in five locations across the US on practitioner practices and preferences of PrEP. We employed multivariable logistic regression analysis for binary and collapsed ordinal outcomes. Among this highly motivated group of practitioners, only 54% reported ever prescribing PrEP. Internal medicine practitioners were 1.6 times more likely than infectious disease practitioners to have prescribed PrEP (95% CI: 0.99-2.60, p = .0524) and age, years of training, and sex were significantly associated with prescribing experience. Based on clinical vignettes describing different hypothetical prescribing scenarios, practitioners who viewed PrEP as the first clinical step for persons who inject drugs (PWID) were twice as likely to have also considered PrEP as the first clinical option for safer conception, and vice-a-versa (95% CI: 1.4-3.2, p < .001). Practitioners considering PrEP as the first preventive option for MSM were nearly six times as likely to also consider PrEP as the first clinical step for PWID, and vice-a-versa (95% CI: 2.28-13.56, p = .0002). Our findings indicate that even among a subset of HIV-focused practitioners, PrEP prescribing is not routine. This group of practitioners could be an optimal group to engage individuals that could most benefit from PrEP.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Less than 10 percent of the more than one million people vulnerable to HIV are using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Practitioners are critical to ensuring the delivery of PrEP across care settings. In this study, we target a group of prescribers focused on providing HIV care and seeking up-to-date information about HIV. We assessed their experiences prescribing PrEP, whether these experiences differed by clinical specialty, and examined associations between willingness to prescribe PrEP as a "best first step" and different hypothetical prescribing scenarios.
SETTING AND METHODS
Between March and May 2015, we circulated a paper survey to 954 participants ((652 of whom met our inclusion criteria of being independent prescribers and 519 of those (80%) responded to the survey)) at continuing medical education advanced-level HIV courses in five locations across the US on practitioner practices and preferences of PrEP. We employed multivariable logistic regression analysis for binary and collapsed ordinal outcomes.
RESULTS
Among this highly motivated group of practitioners, only 54% reported ever prescribing PrEP. Internal medicine practitioners were 1.6 times more likely than infectious disease practitioners to have prescribed PrEP (95% CI: 0.99-2.60, p = .0524) and age, years of training, and sex were significantly associated with prescribing experience. Based on clinical vignettes describing different hypothetical prescribing scenarios, practitioners who viewed PrEP as the first clinical step for persons who inject drugs (PWID) were twice as likely to have also considered PrEP as the first clinical option for safer conception, and vice-a-versa (95% CI: 1.4-3.2, p < .001). Practitioners considering PrEP as the first preventive option for MSM were nearly six times as likely to also consider PrEP as the first clinical step for PWID, and vice-a-versa (95% CI: 2.28-13.56, p = .0002).
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings indicate that even among a subset of HIV-focused practitioners, PrEP prescribing is not routine. This group of practitioners could be an optimal group to engage individuals that could most benefit from PrEP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32881916
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0238375
pii: PONE-D-19-35065
pmc: PMC7470257
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0238375Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : P30 AI042853
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : P30 DA040500
Pays : United States
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2016 Jan-Feb;15(1):59-65
pubmed: 26293904
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015 Nov 27;64(46):1291-5
pubmed: 26606148
JAMA. 2018 Jul 24;320(4):379-396
pubmed: 30043070
AIDS Care. 2014;26(11):1435-9
pubmed: 24878166
AIDS Behav. 2017 May;21(5):1256-1267
pubmed: 27885552
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Mar;35(3):832-838
pubmed: 31705471
AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2015 Apr;29(4):193-203
pubmed: 25692683
AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2018 Dec;32(12):529-537
pubmed: 30311777
Int J Infect Dis. 2018 Dec;77:105-106
pubmed: 30389618
PLoS One. 2019 Jun 21;14(6):e0218556
pubmed: 31226165
JAMA. 2019 Jun 11;321(22):2203-2213
pubmed: 31184747
Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2016 Jan;11(1):41-8
pubmed: 26417953
AIDS Care. 2016 Sep;28(9):1154-8
pubmed: 26915281
AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2014 Mar;28(3):113-20
pubmed: 24564387
Contraception. 2016 May;93(5):463-9
pubmed: 26772906
Ann Epidemiol. 2018 Dec;28(12):833-840
pubmed: 30037634
AIDS Behav. 2015 May;19(5):802-10
pubmed: 25616837
N Engl J Med. 2012 Aug 2;367(5):462-5
pubmed: 22784042
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 Jan 1;62(1):99-105
pubmed: 26385993
Kans J Med. 2017 May 15;10(2):40-42
pubmed: 29472966
Nature. 2019 Mar;567(7748):305-307
pubmed: 30894741
AIDS Behav. 2014 Sep;18(9):1712-21
pubmed: 24965676
AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2012 Jul;26(7):395-405
pubmed: 22694239