IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i6p3579-d773558.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Acceptability of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis and Non-Occupational Post-Exposure Prophylaxis among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Guilin, China

Author

Listed:
  • Lingmi Zhou

    (Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90110, Thailand
    Department of AIDS Control and Prevention, Guilin Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guilin 541000, China)

  • Sawitri Assanangkornchai

    (Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90110, Thailand)

  • Zhaohui Shi

    (Department of AIDS Control and Prevention, Guilin Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guilin 541000, China)

  • Fusheng Jiang

    (Department of AIDS Control and Prevention, Guilin Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guilin 541000, China)

  • Dong Yang

    (Department of AIDS Control and Prevention, Guilin Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guilin 541000, China)

  • Wuxiang Shi

    (Health Management Unit, Faculty of Humanities and Management, Guilin Medical University, Guilin 541004, China)

Abstract

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) are both effective strategies for preventing HIV. There is limited information about the acceptability of these prevention measures in undeveloped areas of China. We aimed to examine the acceptability of PrEP and nPEP and their determinants among men who have sex with men (MSM). 219 MSM were recruited in Guilin, China. In total, 28.6% (95% CI: 20.0–41.0) and 35.9% (95% CI: 27.3–49.5) of the participants had heard of PrEP and nPEP, respectively, while 57.0% (95% CI: 43.1–68.2) and 58.6 (95% CI:44.8–68.8) reported they would be willing to use PrEP and nPEP after the methods were explained. A higher acceptability of PrEP was seen among participants who were previously married (aOR = 3.30; 95% CI: 1.22–9.19), working as a laborer (aOR = 5.13; 95% CI: 1.64–17.59), migrant workers/farmers (aOR = 2.56; 95% CI: 1.15–5.79), government employees (aOR = 4.76; 95%CI: 1.80–13.02), had higher social support (aOR = 1.05; 95% CI: 1.03–1.08), and had been previously tested for HIV (aOR = 2.79; 95% CI: 1.36–5.94). A higher acceptability of nPEP was associated with those having higher social support (aOR = 1.06; 95% CI: 1.04–1.09), not knowing their sexual partner’s HIV status (aOR = 2.72; 95% CI: 1.23–6.12), and having a prior HIV test (aOR = 5.53; 95% CI: 2.58–12.51). PrEP and nPEP are acceptable, especially among MSM with higher social support and had received a previous HIV test. Effective education and different dissemination strategies to promote the acceptance of PrEP and nPEP among MSM are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Lingmi Zhou & Sawitri Assanangkornchai & Zhaohui Shi & Fusheng Jiang & Dong Yang & Wuxiang Shi, 2022. "Acceptability of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis and Non-Occupational Post-Exposure Prophylaxis among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Guilin, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:6:p:3579-:d:773558
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/6/3579/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/6/3579/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liping Peng & Wangnan Cao & Jing Gu & Chun Hao & Jibin Li & Dannuo Wei & Jinghua Li, 2019. "Willingness to Use and Adhere to HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) among Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(14), pages 1-18, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stuart Gilmour & Phuong Le Mai & Phuong Nguyen & Bibha Dhungel & Maki Tomizawa & Huy Nguyen, 2020. "Progress towards Health for All: Time to End Discrimination and Marginalization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-5, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:6:p:3579-:d:773558. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.