IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0258530.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived access to PrEP as a critical step in engagement: A qualitative analysis and discrete choice experiment among young men who have sex with men

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth A Asiago-Reddy
  • John McPeak
  • Riccardo Scarpa
  • Amy Braksmajer
  • Nicola Ruszkowski
  • James McMahon
  • Andrew S London

Abstract

Young Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) continue to face disproportionate HIV risk. Despite its well accepted role in HIV prevention, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake remains below desired goals. Systemic barriers to PrEP access, including insurance complexity, cost, and wait times to start PrEP may contribute to low PrEP engagement. We conducted in-depth interviews and designed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess preferences for and barriers to PrEP access in the United States. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 18 MSM aged 18–30 years old who were not on PrEP and created a DCE based on the results. For the DCE, a convenience sample of young MSM in the United States who reported recent condomless anal sex was recruited through social media applications. Consenting participants provided sociodemographic information and responded to a series of 10 choice tasks about PrEP access. Preferences were analyzed utilizing marginal willingness-to-pay (mWTP) methods. Results: In-depth interviews revealed preferences for highly effective PrEP and concerns about barriers to access due to insurance coverage and privacy. The online DCE was completed by 236 eligible MSM aged 18–30. The most-preferred PrEP package—with all elements significantly preferred over other options—was insurance covered, could be maintained confidential from parents and employers, was available immediately, and had an online option. Need to take out new insurance or add a supplemental insurance in order to cover PrEP significantly detracted from willingness to pay for a PrEP program. Attributes most associated with willingness to pay for PrEP were PrEP being covered by an insurance the client already has and insurance coverage that was private. Conclusions: Young MSM at high risk for HIV in the United States who are not currently on PrEP showed strong preferences for PrEP options that were covered by insurance and could be kept confidential from parents and employers. Lack of these options may present major barriers to PrEP access among young MSM who are at particularly high risk. Rapid access to PrEP, as well as the option of receiving some care online, may also enhance PrEP uptake.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth A Asiago-Reddy & John McPeak & Riccardo Scarpa & Amy Braksmajer & Nicola Ruszkowski & James McMahon & Andrew S London, 2022. "Perceived access to PrEP as a critical step in engagement: A qualitative analysis and discrete choice experiment among young men who have sex with men," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-21, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0258530
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258530
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258530
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258530&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0258530?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kabindra Regmi & Dinesh Kaphle & Sabina Timilsina & Nik Annie Afiqah Tuha, 2018. "Application of Discrete-Choice Experiment Methods in Tobacco Control: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 5-17, March.
    2. Jennifer A. Whitty & Ana Sofia Oliveira Gonçalves, 2018. "A Systematic Review Comparing the Acceptability, Validity and Concordance of Discrete Choice Experiments and Best–Worst Scaling for Eliciting Preferences in Healthcare," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 301-317, June.
    3. Matthew Quaife & Robyn Eakle & Maria A. Cabrera Escobar & Peter Vickerman & Maggie Kilbourne-Brook & Mercy Mvundura & Sinead Delany-Moretlwe & Fern Terris-Prestholt, 2018. "Divergent Preferences for HIV Prevention: A Discrete Choice Experiment for Multipurpose HIV Prevention Products in South Africa," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 120-133, January.
    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. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    2. Buckell, John & White, Justin S. & Shang, Ce, 2020. "Can incentive-compatibility reduce hypothetical bias in smokers’ experimental choice behavior? A randomized discrete choice experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    3. Christine Michaels-Igbokwe & Gillian R. Currie & Bryanne L. Kennedy & Karen V. MacDonald & Deborah A. Marshall, 2021. "Methods for Conducting Stated Preference Research with Children and Adolescents in Health: A Scoping Review of the Application of Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(6), pages 741-758, November.
    4. Ce Shang & James Nonnemaker & Kymberle Sterling & Jessica Sobolewski & Scott R. Weaver, 2021. "Impact of Little Cigars and Cigarillos Packaging Features on Product Preference," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-13, October.
    5. Harvard, Stephanie & Werker, Gregory R. & Silva, Diego S., 2020. "Social, ethical, and other value judgments in health economics modelling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    6. John Buckell & David A Hensher & Stephane Hess, 2021. "Kicking the habit is hard: A hybrid choice model investigation into the role of addiction in smoking behavior," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(1), pages 3-19, January.
    7. Arora, Nikita & dit Sourd, Romain Crastes & Quaife, Matthew & Vassall, Anna & Ferrari, Giulia & Alangea, Deda Ogum & Tawiah, Theresa & Dwommoh Prah, Rebecca Kyerewaa & Jewkes, Rachel & Hanson, Kara & , 2023. "The stated preferences of community-based volunteers for roles in the prevention of violence against women and girls in Ghana: A discrete choice analysis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    8. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    9. Rebecca C. A. Tobi & Francesca Harris & Ritu Rana & Kerry A. Brown & Matthew Quaife & Rosemary Green, 2019. "Sustainable Diet Dimensions. Comparing Consumer Preference for Nutrition, Environmental and Social Responsibility Food Labelling: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    10. Sergio Torres-Rueda & Fern Terris-Prestholt & Mitzy Gafos & Pitchaya Peach Indravudh & Rebecca Giddings & Fiammetta Bozzani & Matthew Quaife & Lusine Ghazaryan & Carlyn Mann & Connie Osborne & Matthew, 2023. "Health Economics Research on Non-surgical Biomedical HIV Prevention: Identifying Gaps and Proposing a Way Forward," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(7), pages 787-802, July.
    11. Axel C. Mühlbacher & Andrew Sadler & Yvonne Jordan, 2022. "Population preferences for non-pharmaceutical interventions to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: trade-offs among public health, individual rights, and economics," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(9), pages 1483-1496, December.
    12. David A. J. Meester & Stephane Hess & John Buckell & Thomas O. Hancock, 2023. "Can decision field theory enhance our understanding of health‐based choices? Evidence from risky health behaviors," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(8), pages 1710-1732, August.
    13. Shimeng Liu & Yingyao Chen & Shunping Li & Ningze Xu & Chengxiang Tang & Yan Wei, 2021. "What Are the Important Factors Influencing the Recruitment and Retention of Doctoral Students in a Public Health Setting? A Discrete Choice Experiment Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-14, September.
    14. Sabina De Rosis & Ilaria Corazza & Francesca Pennucci, 2020. "Physical Activity in the Daily Life of Adolescents: Factors Affecting Healthy Choices from a Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-23, September.
    15. Ostermann, Jan & Flaherty, Brian P. & Brown, Derek S. & Njau, Bernard & Hobbie, Amy M. & Mtuy, Tara B. & Masnick, Max & Mühlbacher, Axel C. & Thielman, Nathan M., 2021. "What factors influence HIV testing? Modeling preference heterogeneity using latent classes and class-independent random effects," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0258530. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.