Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
AIDS and Behavior
Published in: AIDS and Behavior 7/2016

01-07-2016 | Original Paper

Explaining the Efficacy of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV Prevention: A Qualitative Study of Message Framing and Messaging Preferences Among US Men Who have Sex with Men

Authors: Kristen Underhill, Kathleen M. Morrow, Christopher Colleran, Sarah K. Calabrese, Don Operario, Peter Salovey, Kenneth H. Mayer

Published in: AIDS and Behavior | Issue 7/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

We investigated message comprehension and message framing preferences for communicating about PrEP efficacy with US MSM. We conducted eight focus groups (n = 38) and n = 56 individual interviews with MSM in Providence, RI. Facilitators probed comprehension, credibility, and acceptability of efficacy messages, including percentages, non-numerical paraphrases, efficacy ranges versus point estimates, and success- versus failure-framed messages. Our findings indicated a range of comprehension and operational understandings of efficacy messages. Participants tended to prefer percentage-based and success-framed messages, although preferences varied for communicating about efficacy using a single percentage versus a range. Participants reported uncertainty about how to interpret numerical estimates, and many questioned whether trial results would predict personal effectiveness. These results suggest that providers and researchers implementing PrEP may face challenges in communicating with users about efficacy. Efforts to educate MSM about PrEP should incorporate percentage-based information, and message framing decisions may influence message credibility and overall PrEP acceptability.
Literature
1.
Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):399–410.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, et al. Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):423–34.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Choopanya K, Martin M, Suntharasamai P, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV infection in injecting drug users in Bangkok, Thailand (the Bangkok Tenofovir Study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9883):2083–90.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Molina JM, Capitant C, Charreau I, et al. On demand PrEP with oral TDF-FTC in MSM: results of the ANRS Ipergay trial. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Seattle, WA, 2015 [abstract 23LB].
6.
McCormack S, Dunn D. Pragmatic open-label randomised trial of preexposure prophylaxis: the PROUD study. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. Seattle, WA, 2015 [abstract 22LB].
7.
Young I, McDaid L. How acceptable are antiretrovirals for the prevention of sexually transmitted HIV?: a review of research on the acceptability of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment as prevention. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(2):195–216.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Eisingerich AB, Wheelock A, Gomez GB, Garnett GP, Dybul MR, Piot PK. Attitudes and acceptance of oral and parenteral HIV preexposure prophylaxis among potential user groups: a multinational study. Plos One. 2012;7(1):e28238.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Mimiaga MJ, Case P, Johnson CV, Safren SA, Mayer KH. Preexposure antiretroviral prophylaxis attitudes in high-risk Boston area men who report having sex with men: limited knowledge and experience but potential for increased utilization after education. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;50(1):77–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Bauermeister JA, Meanley S, Pingel E, Soler JH, Harper GW. PrEP awareness and perceived barriers among single young men who have sex with men. Curr HIV Res. 2013;11(7):520–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Chen YH, Raymond HF, Grasso M, Nguyen B, Robertson T, McFarland W. Prevalence and predictors of conscious risk behavior among San Franciscan men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(4):1338–43.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Golub SA, Gamarel KE, Rendina HJ, Surace A, Lelutiu-Weinberger CL. From efficacy to effectiveness: facilitators and barriers to PrEP acceptability and motivations for adherence among MSM and transgender women in New York City. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2013;27(4):248–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Liu AY, Vittinghoff E, Chillag K, et al. Sexual risk behavior among HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men participating in a tenofovir preexposure prophylaxis randomized trial in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;64(1):87–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Mustanski B, Johnson AK, Garofalo R, Ryan D, Birkett M. Perceived likelihood of using HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis medications among young men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(6):2173–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Rucinski KB, Mensah NP, Sepkowitz KA, Cutler BH, Sweeney MM, Myers JE. Knowledge and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis among an online sample of young men who have sex with men in New York City. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(6):2180–4.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Mustanski B, Ryan DT, Sanchez T, Sineath C, Macapagal K, Sullivan PS. Effects of messaging about multiple biomedical and behavioral HIV prevention methods on intentions to use among US MSM: results of an experimental messaging study. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(9):1651–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Underhill K, Morrow KM, Operario D, Mayer KH. Could FDA approval of pre-exposure prophylaxis make a difference? A qualitative study of PrEP acceptability and FDA perceptions among men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(2):241–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Barash EA, Golden M. Awareness and use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among attendees of a Seattle gay pride event and sexually transmitted disease clinic. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2010;24(11):689–91.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Mansergh G, Koblin BA, Colfax GN, et al. Preefficacy use and sharing of antiretroviral medications to prevent sexually-transmitted HIV infection among US men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55(2):e14–6.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Mehta SA, Silvera R, Bernstein K, Holzman RS, Aberg JA, Daskalakis DC. Awareness of post-exposure HIV prophylaxis in high-risk men who have sex with men in New York City. Sex Transm Infect. 2011;87(4):344–8.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Galindo GR, Walker JJ, Hazelton P, et al. Community member perspectives from transgender women and men who have sex with men on pre-exposure prophylaxis as an HIV prevention strategy: implications for implementation. Implement Sci. 2012;7:116.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Hosek S, Siberry G, Bell M, et al. The acceptability and feasibility of an HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) trial with young men who have sex with men (YMSM). J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;62(4):447–56.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Juusola JL, Brandeau ML, Owens DK, Bendavid E. The cost-effectiveness of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in the United States in men who have sex with men. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(8):541–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Krakower DS, Mimiaga MJ, Rosenberger JG, et al. Limited awareness and low immediate uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men using an internet social networking site. Plos One. 2012;7(3):e33119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Mansergh G, Koblin BA, Sullivan PS. Challenges for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in the United States. Plos Med. 2012;9(8):e1001286.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Koblin BA, Mansergh G, Frye V, et al. Condom-use decision making in the context of hypothetical pre-exposure prophylaxis efficacy among substance-using men who have sex with men: project MIX. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;58(3):319–27.CrossRefPubMed
27.
CDC. CDC fact sheet: HIV and AIDS among gay and bisexual men, 2011.
28.
Smith DK, Thigpen MC, Nesheim SR, et al. Interim guidance for clinicians considering the use of preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in heterosexually active adults. MMWR. 2012;61:586.
29.
Smith DK, Grant RM, Weidle PJ, Lansky A, Mermin J, Fenton KA. Interim guidance: preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in men who have sex with men. MMWR. 2011;60(3):65–8.
30.
Smith DK, Martin M, Lansky A, Mermin J, Choopanya K. Update to interim guidance for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the prevention of HIV infection: PrEP for injecting drug users. MMWR. 2013;62(23):463–5.
31.
World Health Organization. Guidance on oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for serodiscordant couples, men and transgender women who have sex with men at high risk of HIV: recommendations for use in the context of demonstration projects. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2012.
32.
33.
Gilead Sciences Inc. TRUVADA for a pre-exposure prophylaxis indication: training guide for healthcare providers. Foster City, CA: Gilead Sciences Inc.; 2013.
34.
CDC. Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States 2014: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 2014.
35.
FDA. Truvada for PrEP Fact Sheet: Ensuring Safe and Proper Use. Silver Spring, MD: FDA; 2012.
36.
Mayer K, Johnson C, Mimiaga M, Safren S, Case P. Influence of potential symptoms and perceived efficacy on the willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among Boston area men who have sex with men (MSM). 5th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment. Cape Town, South Africa, 2009 [abstract WEPEC080].
37.
Anderson PL, Glidden DV, Liu A. Emtricitabine-tenofovir concentrations and pre-exposure prophylaxis efficacy in men who have sex with men. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4(151):151ra125.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Newman PA, Duan N, Rudy ET, Roberts KJ, Swendeman D. Posttrial HIV vaccine adoption: concerns, motivators, and intentions among persons at risk for HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004;37(3):1393–403.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Rothman AJ, Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing Psychol Bull. 1997;121(1):3–19.PubMed
40.
Linville PW, Fischer GW, Fischhoff B. AIDS risk perceptions and decision biases. In: Pryor JB, Reeder GD, editors. The social psychology of HIV infection. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1993. p. 5–38.
41.
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R. Presenting risk information: a review of the effects of “framing” and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun. 2001;6:61–82.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Gallagher KM, Updegraff JA. Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review. Ann Behav Med. 2012;43(1):101–16.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Rucker DD, Petty RE, Brinol P. What’s in a frame anyway?: a meta-cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty. J Consum Psychol. 2008;18(2):137–49.CrossRef
44.
Golub SA, Gamarel K, Surace A, Lelutiu-Winberger C. Impact of PrEP messaging factors on comprehension, adherence motivation, and risk compensation intentions. 8th International Conference on HIV Treatment and Prevention Adherence. Miami, FL, 2013 [abstract 125].
45.
Golub SA, Gamarel K, Surace A, Lelutiu-Weinberger CL. Critical lessons for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) messaging and program development. American Public Health Association140th Annual Meeting. San Francisco, CA, 2014 [abstract 267271].
46.
47.
Thorne S, Kirkham SR, MacDonald-Emes J. Interpretive description: a noncategorical qualitative alternative for developing nursing knowledge. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20(2):169–77.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Thorne S. Interpretive description. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc.; 2008.
49.
Thorne S, Kirkham SR, O’Flynn-Magee K. The analytic challenge in interpretive description. Int J Qual Methods. 2004;3(1):1–11.
50.
51.
52.
Bradley EH, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(4):1758–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Golub SA, Kowalczyk W, Weinberger CL, Parsons JT. Preexposure prophylaxis and predicted condom use among high-risk men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;54(5):548–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Helweg-Larsen M, Shepperd JA. Do Moderators of the optimistic bias affect personal or target risk estimates? A review of the literature. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2001;5(1):74–95.CrossRef
55.
Klein CTF, Helweg-Larsen M. Perceived control and the optimistic bias: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Health. 2002;17:437–46.CrossRef
56.
Lipkus IM, Klein WM, Rimer BK. Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2001;10(8):895–8.
57.
58.
Petty RE, Priester JR, Brinol P. Mass media attitude change: implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuastion. In: Bryant J, Zillman D, editors. Media effects: advances in theory and research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002. p. 155–98.
59.
Smith SM, Petty RE. Message framing and persuasion: a message processing analysis. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1996;22(3):257–68.CrossRef
60.
Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1986;19:123–205.CrossRef
61.
Kuhn KM. Communicating uncertainty: framing effects on responses to vague probabilities. Org Behav Hum Decis Process. 1997;71(1):55–83.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Explaining the Efficacy of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV Prevention: A Qualitative Study of Message Framing and Messaging Preferences Among US Men Who have Sex with Men
Authors
Kristen Underhill
Kathleen M. Morrow
Christopher Colleran
Sarah K. Calabrese
Don Operario
Peter Salovey
Kenneth H. Mayer
Publication date
01-07-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
AIDS and Behavior / Issue 7/2016
Print ISSN: 1090-7165
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3254
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1088-9

Other articles of this Issue 7/2016

AIDS and Behavior 7/2016 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Awareness of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for HIV, Willingness to Use It and Potential Barriers or Facilitators to Uptake Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Spain

Original Paper

Relationship Dynamics and Partner Beliefs About Viral Suppression: A Longitudinal Study of Male Couples Living with HIV/AIDS (The Duo Project)

Original Paper

Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Adherence Measured by Plasma Drug Level in MTN-001: Comparison Between Vaginal Gel and Oral Tablets in Two Geographic Regions

Original Paper

Early Adopters: Correlates of HIV Chemoprophylaxis Use in Recent Online Samples of US Men Who Have Sex with Men

Original Paper

Correlates of PrEP Indication in a Multi-Site Cohort of Young HIV-Uninfected Transgender Women

Original Paper

Seasons of Risk: Anticipated Behavior on Vacation and Interest in Episodic Antiretroviral Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Among a Large National Sample of U.S. Men Who have Sex with Men (MSM)
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

Read more

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits