Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: AIDS Care. 2020 Jan 21;33(4):428–433. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2020.1717421

PrEP Awareness among people living with HIV in Florida: Florida Cohort Study

Angel B Algarin 1, Zhi Zhou 2, Shantrel Canidate 3, Nioud Mulugeta Gebru 4, Janice L Krieger 5, Jordan M Neil 6, Robert L Cook 7, Gladys E Ibañez 8
PMCID: PMC7371495  NIHMSID: NIHMS1551826  PMID: 31960703

Abstract

In 2017, Florida ranked 2nd nationally in prevalence and incidence rates of HIV infections in the United States. Due to the high burden of HIV and low viral suppression in Florida, it is of increased importance to study methods of HIV prevention such as preexposure prophylaxis(PrEP) in this state. Our study aimed to examine correlates of PrEP awareness among PLWH in Florida and describe patterns of PrEP awareness/information sources. Using data collected from the Florida Cohort study between 2014−−2018, 530 PLWH answered items that were hypothesized to be correlated with PrEP awareness. Of our sample, 53.8% were aware of PrEP. Urban location of recruitment, sexual partner’s use of PrEP, use of viral suppression as an HIV prevention strategy, and engagement in transactional sex were all significantly associated with higher odds of PrEP awareness. Care providers and HIV/AIDS support groups were the most frequently listed sources of PrEP awareness, sources of future PrEP information, and most trusted sources for PrEP information. Findings from this study could inform future interventions that aim to increase PrEP awareness among PLWH to increase PrEP awareness and uptake among their HIV-negative social and sexual networks.

Keywords: Preexposure Prophylaxis, Awareness, HIV

Introduction

PrEP is part of the national HIV prevention strategy (Executive Office of the President & Office of National AIDS Policy, 2015), but PrEP uptake is low, especially in the South (Siegler et al., 2018). We need to identify new strategies to raise awareness and utilization of PrEP among those at risk for HIV. PLWH could be an important source of information for HIV-negative persons in their social and sexual networks. Two previous studies suggest low awareness of PrEP among PLWH (15.3—33.5%), but high willingness to recommend PrEP upon learning about it (88.8%−−90.7%)(Farthing et al., 2019; Jayakumaran, Aaron, Gracely, Schriver, & Szep, 2016); however, these findings were from single clinic samples.

The aims of this analysis were to identify factors associated with PrEP awareness and to describe sources of PrEP information among a statewide sample of PLWH in Florida. Based on previous findings, we used a socioecologial framework to model levels that may be associated with PrEP awareness including: community factors(urban/rural, primary care provider) (Dolezal et al., 2015; Strauss et al., 2017; Khanna et al., 2016), interpersonal factors(sexual behavior) (Garnett et al., 2018.; Strauss et al., 2017; Eaton, Driffin, Bauermeister, Smith, & Conway-Washington, 2015; Walters, Reilly, Neaigus, & Braunstein, 2017), and individual factors(sociodemographic, health history) (Garnett et al., 2018.; Misra & Udeagu, 2017; Krakower et al., 2012). Given the lack of data on attitudes towards PrEP among PLWH, the results may be vital in shaping future interventions targeting the PrEP attitudes among PLWH to increase PrEP uptake among their HIV-negative social and sexual networks.

Methods

We conducted a secondary data analysis using data collected by the Florida Cohort Study, which enrolled 932 PLWH from 9 public health clinics and settings throughout the state of Florida from 2014—2018 (Ibanez et al., [under review]). After providing informed consent, 569 participants completed both baseline and at a 6-month follow-up surveys.

Measures

The surveys used for this study can be found online at www.sharc-research.org. All variables were self-reported by participants, except for study site location and year of survey completion.

PrEP Awareness Measure

PrEP awareness was assessed by asking participants, “Prior to this survey, had you heard of PrEP?” Among those aware of PrEP, we also asked where they first heard about PrEP, what source they would most likely use to find further information about PrEP, which sources they would trust most for information about PrEP, and about their likelihood of suggesting PrEP to someone they know.

Individual Factors

Individual items included: age, sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, education, marital status, HIV prevention strategy(condoms, viral suppression), and sexually transmitted infection(STI) history.

Interpersonal Factors

Interpersonal items included: recent transactional sex, number of recent male anal/vaginal sex partners, number of recent female anal/vaginal sex partners, partner PrEP use, and use of mobile applications(‘apps’) to find sexual partners, and HIV-related stigma.

Community Factors

Community factors included study site location rurality and having a primary care provider in the past 12 months. Study site rurality was determined per the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau’s classification (USCB, 2010).

Analysis

Data were analyzed using SAS(v9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). After excluding 22 persons who did not answer the PrEP awareness item, 11 who identified as transgender/gender non-conforming, and 6 with >50% of predictor variables missing, the final sample include 530 PLWH. For variables with ≥4% missingness, a ‘missing’ categorical level was created. Statistical significance for bivariate comparisons were assessed using Chi-Square and Fisher’s exact test as appropriate. Variables that were significant at p<0.10 were included in a multivariable model. Goodness-of-fit was determined using the Hosmer and Lemeshow test. Statistical significance was set at α=0.05.

Results

More than half (53.8%) of the sample were aware of PrEP prior to taking the survey. PrEP awareness was significantly more common in persons who were male (χ2=4.79,p=0.029), Hispanic (Fisher’s exact test, p=0.050), homosexual (χ2=16.57,p<0.001), >high school/GED educated (χ2=9.11,p=0.011), recruited at an urban study site (χ2=9.30,p=0.002), using partner PrEP use as an HIV prevention strategy (Fisher’s exact test, p<0.001), using viral suppression as an HIV prevention strategy (χ2=18.82,p<0.001), engaging in transactional sex (χ2=5.21,p=0.022), using mobile ‘apps’ to find sex partners (χ2=19.56,p<0.001), and previously diagnosed with an STI (χ2=8.78,p=0.032) in bivariate analyses (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographics of 530 PLHIV who completed the Florida Cohort Follow-up

Total Sample (n=530) Not aware of PrEP (n=245) Aware of PrEP (n=285) Χ2 p-value
n (%) n (%)
Age group 3.74 0.291
18–34 years old 67 (12.6) 24 (9.8) 43 (15.1)
35–44 years old 89 (16.8) 40 (16.3) 49 (17.2)
45–54 years old 213 (40.2) 102 (41.6) 112 (39.0)
≥55 years old 161 (30.4) 79 (32.2) 82 (28.8)
Biological sex 4.79 0.029
Male 325 (61.3) 138 (56.3) 187 (65.6)
Female 205 (38.7) 107(43.7) 98 (34.4)
Race/Ethnicity --a 0.050
White, non-Hispanic 96 (18.1) 40 (16.3) 56 (19.7)
Hispanic 109 (20.6) 45 (18.4) 64 (22.5)
Black, non-Hispanic 308 (58.1) 156 (63.7) 152 (53.3)
Other 17 (3.2) 4 (1.6) 13 (4.6)
Sexual orientation 16.57 <0.001
Heterosexual 295 (55.6) 158 (64.5) 137 (48.1)
Homosexual 165 (31.1) 56 (22.9) 109 (38.3)
Bisexual 44 (8.3) 19 (7.8) 25 (8.8)
Missing 26 (4.9) 12 (4.9) 14 (4.9)
Education 9.11 0.011
<High school 180 (34.1) 98 (40.0) 82 (29.0)
High school/GED 162 (30.7) 75 (30.6) 87 (30.7)
>High school/GED 186 (35.2) 72 (29.4) 114 (40.3)
Marital status 0.04 0.848
Married 101 (19.1) 46 (18.8) 55 (19.4)
Single/divorced/widowed 427 (80.9) 199 (81.2) 228 (80.6)
Study site 9.30 0.002
Urban 477 (90.0) 210 (85.7) 267 (93.7)
Rural 53 (10.0) 35 (14.3) 18 (6.3)
HIV-related stigma level 1.32 0.516
No stigma 248 (48.7) 121 (51.3) 127 (46.5)
Moderate stigma 201 (39.5) 90 (38.1) 111 (40.7)
High stigma 60 (11.8) 25 (10.6) 35 (12.8)
Number of male anal/vaginal sex partners 4.68 0.097
0 336 (63.4) 167 (68.2) 169 (59.3)
1 123 (23.2) 51 (20.8) 72 (25.3)
2+ 71 (13.4) 27 (11.0) 44 (15.4)
Number of female anal/vaginal sex partners 0.49 0.782
0 450 (84.9) 210 (85.7) 240 (84.2)
1 46 (8.7) 19 (7.8) 27 (9.5)
2+ 34 (6.4) 16 (6.5) 18 (6.3)
Partner use of PrEP as an HIV prevention strategy --a <0.001
No 498 (94.0) 243 (99.2) 255 (89.5)
Yes 32 (6.0) 2 (0.8) 30 (10.5)
Use of condoms as an HIV prevention strategy 0.08 0.784
No 263 (49.6) 120 (49.0) 143 (50.2)
Yes 267 (50.4) 125 (51.0) 150 (49.8)
Use of viral suppression as an HIV prevention strategy 18.82 <0.001
No 333 (62.8) 178 (72.7) 155 (54.4)
Yes 197 (37.2) 67 (27.3) 130 (45.6)
Engaged in transactional sex 5.21 0.022
No 505 (95.3) 239 (97.5) 266 (93.3)
Yes 25 (4.7) 6 (2.5) 19 (6.7)
Mobile ‘app’ use for sex 19.56 <0.001
No 421 (81.3) 213 (89.5) 208 (74.3)
Yes 97 (18.7) 25 (10.5) 72 (25.7)
Primary care provider (PCP) 5.31 0.070
No PCP 88 (17.1) 42 (17.4) 46 (17.0)
PCP different than HIV care provider 142 (27.7) 78 (32.2) 64 (23.6)
PCP same as HIV care provider 283 (55.2) 122 (50.4) 161 (59.4)
STI diagnosis 8.78 0.032
Never 214 (40.4) 110 (44.9) 104 (36.5)
STI in the past year 69 (13.0) 23 (9.4) 46 (16.1)
STI more than a year ago 221 (41.7) 97 (39.6) 124 (46.5)
Missing 26 (4.9) 15 (6.1) 11 (3.9)
Year survey completed 5.09 0.165
2015 186 (35.1) 97 (39.6) 89 (31.2)
2016 176 (33.2) 71 (29.0) 105 (36.8)
2017 135 (25.5) 62 (25.3) 73 (25.6)
2018 33 (6.2) 15 (6.1) 18 (6.3)

Bolded values are p<0.05

a.

P-value was generated using Fisher’s exact test

After listwise deletion, 484 cases were included in the final model. The adjusted model found that engagement in transactional sex (AOR[CI]: 3.41[1.12, 10.33], p=0.030), use of viral suppression as an HIV prevention strategy (AOR[CI]: 1.63[1.06, 2.52], p=0.027), and partner’s PrEP use as an HIV prevention strategy (AOR[CI]: 7.63[1.69, 34.42], p=0.008) had significantly greater odds of PrEP awareness. Additionally, those recruited from a rural study site (AOR[CI]: 0.44[0.22, 0.88], p=0.020) had significantly lower odds of PrEP awareness (Table 2). Goodness-of-fit was found to be sufficient(Hosmer and Lemeshow test, p=0.191).

Table 2.

Adjusted logistic regression models of correlates to PrEP awareness among PLHIV in Florida

Adjusted OR 95% C.I. p-value
Biological sex
Male -- -- --
Female 1.10 (0.67, 1.82) 0.698
Race/Ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic -- -- --
Hispanic 1.02 (0.53, 1.97) 0.956
Black, non-Hispanic 0.95 (0.55, 1.64) 0.855
Other 2.08 (0.49, 8.82) 0.322
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual -- -- --
Homosexual 1.55 (0.87, 2.76) 0.141
Bisexual 1.17 (0.55, 2.50) 0.680
Missing 1.55 (0.61, 3.95) 0.354
Education
<High school -- -- --
High school/GED 1.34 (0.83, 2.16) 0.237
>High school/GED 1.34 (0.81, 2.20) 0.252
Study site
Urban -- -- --
Rural 0.44 (0.22, 0.88) 0.020
Number of male anal/vaginal sex partners
0 -- -- --
1 0.95 (0.57, 1.60) 0.854
2+ 0.79 (0.40, 1.55) 0.491
Partner used PrEP as an HIV prevention strategy
No -- -- --
Yes 7.63 (1.69, 34.42) 0.008
Viral suppression as an HIV prevention strategy
No -- -- --
Yes 1.63 (1.06, 2.52) 0.027
Engaged in transactional Sex
No -- -- --
Yes 3.41 (1.12, 10.33) 0.030
Mobile ‘app’ use for sex
No
Yes 1.73 (0.96, 3.12) 0.067
Primary care provider (PCP)
No PCP -- -- --
PCP different than HIV care provider 0.85 (0.47, 1.53) 0.580
PCP same as HIV care provider 1.31 (0.77, 2.24) 0.320
STI diagnosis
Never -- -- --
STI in the past year 1.32 (0.77, 2.59) 0.421
STI more than a year ago 1.12 (0.73, 1.72) 0.611
Missing 1.20 (0.48, 3.03) 0.700

Bolded values are p<0.05

Among those aware of PrEP (n=285), 65.0% were ‘likely/somewhat likely’ to suggest PrEP to someone they knew, whereas 16.0% indicated they were ‘neutral’ and 19.0% said they were ‘unlikely/somewhat unlikely’ to recommend PrEP to others. A majority first heard about PrEP from their doctor (35.0%) and from HIV/AIDS support groups (28.6%). Additionally, a majority would use their doctor (61.7%) and HIV/AIDS support groups (34.1%) to find more information about PrEP. Moreover, a majority would trust information from their doctor (73.2%) and from HIV/AIDS support groups (30.3%) about PrEP (Table 3).

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics of PrEP awareness and information among 285 PLWH who were aware of PrEPa

Where did you first hear about PrEP? What source would you most likely use to find further information about PrEP? Which source would you trust most for information about PrEP?
n (%) n (%) n (%)
The news (e.g. newspaper, TV, etc.) 46 (17.3) 32 (12.3) 18 (6.9)
HIV/AIDS support group 76 (28.6) 89 (34.1) 79 (30.3)
Spouse/main partner 4 (1.5) 8 (3.1) 12 (4.6)
Friend/family member 22 (8.3) 22 (8.4) 14 (5.4)
Public health organization 51 (19.2) 81 (31.0) 71 (27.2)
My doctor 93 (35.0) 161 (61.7) 191 (73.2)
The Internet (e.g., blogs, social media) 39 (14.7) 84 (32.2) 28 (10.7)
Other 10 (3.8) 4 (1.5) 5 (1.9)
a.

The values presented are not reflective of the sample size but the frequencies of times that each option was mentioned.

Discussion

This study is among the first to examine correlates of PrEP awareness among PLWH. One primary finding was that the use of viral suppression and partner’s PrEP use as HIV prevention strategies had significantly greater odds of PrEP awareness. Since the landmark study HPTN-052 (Cohen, McCauley, & Gamble, 2012), treatment as prevention(TasP) was shown to be effective in preventing the transmission of HIV. Our finding may reflect the growing awareness in biomedical HIV prevention strategies among PLWH, including TasP and PrEP. Building support for the effectiveness of biomedical prevention strategies (Cohen et al., 2012; CDC, 2017; Baeten et al., 2012; Thigpen et al. 2012; UNAIDS, 2018) could increase the awareness of PrEP and TasP among PLWH.

Our study also found that between rural and urban study locations there were significant differences in PrEP awareness. Eight of the nine counties the study recruited from were urban, while Columbia County was the only county that was rural as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB, 2010). Four of our recruitment sites were the top 4 counties in Florida (Miami-Dade, Broward, Orange, and Hillsborough Counties, respectively) for new HIV infections in 2017, while Columbia County ranked 36th (FDOH, 2017). Lower burden of HIV and depressed HIV prevention resources in low prevalence areas may contribute to lower awareness of PrEP in rural areas. In the U.S., HIV infection rates are increasing in nonurban areas (Schafer et al., 2017). Previous research has found that PLWH in rural areas had lower retention in care and viral suppression than in urban areas (Nelson et al., 2018). Poorer retention in care and viral suppression among rural PLWH is concerning as it may highlight a gap in HIV prevention, as previous research has also found that people in rural areas also have barriers to sexual healthcare (Schafer et al., 2017; Hubach et al., 2017; Hallum-Montes et al., 2016), particularly in accessing PrEP (Hubach et al., 2017). Our findings support mounting calls for additional sexual health centered services developed for and targeted to rural populations.

The descriptive information among those aware of PrEP suggest that doctors and HIV/AIDS support groups are important sources of PrEP information. Previous research on correlates to PrEP uptake found that first hearing about PrEP from a care provider was associated with increased PrEP uptake (Algarin et al., 2019). Future research should examine if provider driven interventions that aim to educate PLWH about PrEP could result in increased PrEP uptake by HIV-negative people in PLWH’s social and sexual networks. Additionally high frequency of using HIV/AIDS support groups for PrEP awareness and PrEP information could imply that additional interventions that target HIV/AIDS support groups could supplement and enforce PrEP information PLWH learn from care providers.

Though 65% of those who were aware of PrEP were ‘likely/somewhat likely’ to suggest PrEP to someone they knew, around a third were ‘neutral’ or ‘somewhat unlikely/unlikely’ to suggest PrEP. Future qualitative research should examine barriers of PLWH in suggesting PrEP to someone they know.

Limitations

Due to small sample size, transgender/gender non-conforming individuals (n=11), were removed from analyses. Future studies should continue to measure PrEP awareness among this population. Additionally, our study used convenience sampling to recruit participants. Convenience sampling at majority community based organizations, clinics, and county health department settings could have made our sample more aware of PrEP as they may have exposure to materials that mention PrEP.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations, this study had important strengths. The Florida Cohort study recruited from 9 different locations that spanned the state of Florida, increasing future generalizability of findings for the state. Additionally, to the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine the sources of PrEP awareness, most likely source of future PrEP information, and most trusted source for PrEP information among PLWH.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the NIH/NIAAA under Grant U24 AA022002. We would like to thank Katherine Huber for her contributions to the manuscript.

References

  1. AIDSVu. Mapping PrEP: First Ever Data on PrEP Users Across the U.S. 2017. Retrieved from: https://aidsvu.org/prep/
  2. Algarin AB, Shrader CH, Bhatt C, Hackworth BT, Cook RL, & Ibañez GE (2019). The Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Continuum of Care and Correlates to Initiation Among HIV-Negative Men Recruited at Miami Gay Pride 2018. Journal of Urban Health, 1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, Mugo NR, Campbell JD, Wangisi J, … & Ronald A (2012). Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. New England Journal of Medicine, 367(5), 399–410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC). (2017). Dear colleague: information from CDC’s division of HIV/AIDS prevention. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/dcl/dcl/092717.html
  5. Cohen MS, McCauley M, & Gamble TR (2012). HIV treatment as prevention and HPTN 052. Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS, 7(2), 99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dolezal C, Frasca T, Giguere R, Ibitoye M, Cranston RD, Febo I, … & Carballo-Diéguez A. (2015). Awareness of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is low but interest is high among men engaging in condomless anal sex with men in Boston, Pittsburgh, and San Juan. AIDS Education and Prevention, 27(4), 289–297. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Eaton LA, Driffin DD, Bauermeister J, Smith H, & Conway-Washington C (2015). Minimal awareness and stalled uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among at risk, HIV-negative, black men who have sex with men. AIDS patient care and STDs, 29(8), 423–429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Farthing H, Rodriguez A, Armstrong M, Iyengar S, Nigh E, Potter J, & Doblecki-Lewis S (2019). Discomfort discussing HIV/AIDS and lack of awareness are barriers to partner-to-partner pre-exposure prophylaxis education. International journal of STD & AIDS, 30(2), 147–153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Executive Office of the President & Office of National AIDS Policy. (2015) National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States: Updated to 2020. Retrieved from: https://npin.cdc.gov/publication/national-hivaids-strategy-united-states-updated-2020
  10. Florida Department of Health(FDOH). (2018). HIV/AIDS Epidemiological Profile: Florida, 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.floridahealth.gov/diseases-and-conditions/aids/surveillance/epi-profiles/Epi_Profile_Tables_Florida_2018_Locked.xlsx [Google Scholar]
  11. Garnett M, Hirsch-Moverman Y, Franks J, Hayes-Larson E, El-Sadr WM, & Mannheimer S (2018). Limited awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis among black men who have sex with men and transgender women in New York city. AIDS care, 30(1), 9–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hallum-Montes R, Rhodes L, Malone C, Martin G, Senter L, & Bunyasaranand P (2016). ‘Our only resource’: Perspectives and Recommendations of Rural African American Youth on Adapting Sexual Health and Risk Reduction Interventions. Journal of health care for the poor and underserved, 27(2), 622–635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hubach RD, Currin JM, Sanders CA, Durham AR, Kavanaugh KE, Wheeler DL, & Croff JM (2017). Barriers to access and adoption of pre-exposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV among men who have sex with men (MSM) in a relatively rural state. AIDS Education and Prevention, 29(4), 315–329. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ibanez GE, Zhou Z, Cook CL, Slade T, Somboonwit C, Mornao J, … & Cook RL (Under Review). The Florida Cohort Study: Methodological challenges and lessons learned in the design and implementation of a new cohort of persons living with HIV (PLWH). AIDS Care. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jayakumaran JS, Aaron E, Gracely EJ, Schriver E, & Szep Z (2016). Knowledge, attitudes, and acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis among individuals living with HIV in an urban HIV clinic. PloS one, 11(2), e0145670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Khanna AS, Michaels S, Skaathun B, Morgan E, Green K, Young L, & Schneider JA (2016). Preexposure prophylaxis awareness and use in a population-based sample of young black men who have sex with men. JAMA internal medicine, 176(1), 136–138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Krakower DS, Mimiaga MJ, Rosenberger JG, Novak DS, Mitty JA, White JM, & Mayer KH (2012). 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, 7(3), e33119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Misra K, & Udeagu CC (2017). Disparities in awareness of HIV postexposure and preexposure prophylaxis among notified partners of HIV-positive individuals, New York City 2015–2017. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 76(2), 132–140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Nelson JA, Kinder A, Johnson AS, Hall HI, Hu X, Sweet D, … & Paz NM. (2018). Differences in selected HIV care continuum outcomes among people residing in rural, urban, and metropolitan areas—28 US jurisdictions. The Journal of Rural Health, 34(1), 63–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Schafer KR, Albrecht H, Dillingham R, Hogg RS, Jaworsky D, Kasper K, … & Rhodes SD (2017). The continuum of HIV care in rural communities in the United States and Canada: what is known and future research directions. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 75(1), 35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Siegler AJ, Mouhanna F, Giler RM, Weiss K, Pembleton E, Guest J, … & McCallister S (2018). The prevalence of pre-exposure prophylaxis use and the pre-exposure prophylaxis–to-need ratio in the fourth quarter of 2017, United States. Annals of epidemiology, 28(12), 841–849. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Strauss BB, Greene GJ, Phillips G, Bhatia R, Madkins K, Parsons JT, & Mustanski B (2017). Exploring patterns of awareness and use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among young men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior, 21(5), 1288–1298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, Smith DK, Rose CE, Segolodi TM, … & Mutanhaurwa R (2012). Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. New England Journal of Medicine, 367(5), 423–434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. UNAIDS. Undetectable = Untransmissable. 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2018/july/undetectable-untransmittable
  25. United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2010. Census Summary File 1: H2-Urabn and Rural.
  26. Walters SM, Reilly KH, Neaigus A, & Braunstein S (2017). Awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among women who inject drugs in NYC: the importance of networks and syringe exchange programs for HIV prevention. Harm reduction journal, 14(1), 40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES