Table 4.

Associations between Demographic Characteristics and Indications for PrEP Use and Likelihood of Receiving Less Positive Messages About PrEP from Various Sources among Sexual and Gender Minorities (N = 331) Recruited at a Pride Event in Milwaukee, WI in June 2018

Demographic Characteristic	Internet	Social Media	Friends	Public Health Campaigns	Healthcare Providers	Sexual or Dating Partners	Overall Perceived Tone
	APR [95% CI]	APR [95% CI]	APR [95% CI]	APR [95% CI]	APR [95% CI]	APR [95% CI]	APR [95% CI]
Black	2.47*** [1.62,3.77]	3.08*** [1.87,5.05]	1.84* [1.06,3.22]	2.49** [1.31,4.76]	1.95* [1.09,3.48]	2.47** [1.32,4.61]	2.38*** [1.57,3.62]
Another race	1.07 [0.54,2.12]	0.59 [0.15,2.40]	0.99 [0.43,2.25]	0.28 [0.04,1.95]	0.61 [0.17,2.21]	1.26 [0.54,2.95]	0.99 [0.50,1.96]
Latinx	1.29 [0.75,2.22]	0.88 [0.41,1.85]	1.40 [0.72,2.74]	1.95 [0.80,3.88]	1.29 [0.63,2.61]	1.66 [0.75,3.72]	1.35 [0.77,2.38]
Age	0.96 [0.80,1.16]	0.99 [0.80,1.22]	0.84 [0.61,1.15]	0.99 [0.71,1.39]	0.93 [0.68,1.27]	0.98 [0.70,1.37]	0.98 [0.82,1.17]
Material hardship	1.04 [0.84,1.28]	0.96 [0.75,1.24]	1.02 [0.77,1.36]	0.89 [0.63,1.24]	0.81 [0.69,1.11]	1.35 [1.00,1.83]	1.00 [0.81,1.23]
Trans/non-binary	0.90 [0.42,1.92]	1.07 [0.52,2.23]	0.91 [0.27,3.08]	0.47 [0.07,3.11]	0.80 [0.27,2.38]	1.57 [0.56,4.39]	1.26 [0.67,2.39]
Indications for PrEP	1.05 [0.68,1.61]	0.93 [0.58,1.49]	0.54* [0.31,0.96]	1.53 [0.77,3.02]	0.89 [0.49,1.61]	0.88 [0.49,1.59]	0.92 [0.60,1.40]

Note. APR = Adjusted Prevalence Ratio; Trans = Transgender; PrEP = Pre-exposure prophylaxis. Models explore the likelihood of describing messages from a source as “Very negative,” “Somewhat negative,” or “Neutral” (vs. “Somewhat positive” or “Very positive”). Participants reported on perceived tone of messages only when they had heard something about PrEP from a particular source in the past year. Age was divided by 10 for analyses such that 1 unit of change is equivalent to 10 years.

^***p < .001

^**p < .01

^*p < .05