Table 2.
Preconception Attitudes and Practices Reported by Female Participants
| Female participants |
|
|---|---|
| (N = 25) (%) | |
| Attempted conception with partner before study | |
| Yes | 6 (24) |
| No | 19 (76) |
| Risk-reduction methods in the past (not necessarily with current partner) | |
| Partner on cART to reduce VL | 5 (20) |
| Sperm wash + IUI | 3 (12) |
| Condom use | 1 (4) |
| None | 16 (64) |
| Referred to a fertility clinic before study | 5 (20) |
| Reasons for using PrEP for conception (n = 24) | |
| Safe | 10 (42) |
| Affordable | 5 (21) |
| Good data/effective prevention strategy | 3 (12) |
| Othera | 6 (25) |
| If both sperm wash and PrEP were available through insurance method, which would be chosen (n = 23) | |
| PrEP | 9 (39) |
| SW/IUI | 7 (30) |
| No preference | 7 (30) |
| Fear or concerns about using PrEPb | |
| HIV transmission | 9 (36) |
| Side effects | 8 (32) |
| Difficulty taking tablet daily | 4 (16) |
| Other | 9 (36) |
| None | 6 (24) |
a
Other reasons included were as follows: wanting to seek natural conception method, have not yet decided, clinic or doctor recommended, or stated “other” only.
b
Participants could select more than one choice.
cART, combination antiretroviral therapy; IUI, intrauterine insemination; PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis; SW, sperm wash; VL, viral load.