It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Objective
Strategies to increase pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake are needed. We hypothesized that same-day PrEP initiation in a sexually transmitted diseases (STD) clinic would be acceptable, feasible, and safe, and that individuals would engage in ongoing PrEP care.
Method
Individuals aged ≥ 18 years were evaluated for PrEP. Exclusion criteria were HIV, history of renal dysfunction or chronic hepatitis B infection, pregnancy, indications for HIV post-exposure prophylaxis, or positive screen for acute HIV symptoms. One hundred individuals received a free 30-day PrEP starter pack and met with a patient navigator to establish ongoing care. Bivariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare individuals who did and did not attend at least 1 PrEP follow-up appointment within 180 days of enrollment. Client satisfaction surveys were given 3 months after enrollment.
Results
The majority (78%) of participants completed at least 1 PrEP follow-up appointment, and 57% attended at least 2 follow-up appointments. After adjusting for race and ethnicity, age, health insurance status, and annual income, only income was associated with follow-up appointment attendance. Each additional $10,000 increase in income was associated with a 1.7-fold increase in the odds of attending a PrEP follow-up appointment (95% confidence interval, 1.07–2.66, P = .02). The majority (54%) of individuals completed the satisfaction survey and all respondents liked the option of same-day PrEP initiation.
Conclusions
Our study suggests STD clinic-based, same-day PrEP initiation is acceptable, feasible, safe, and links a high proportion of individuals into ongoing PrEP care. Additional resources may be needed to support low-income individuals’ retention in care.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Denver Public Health, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, Colorado
2 University of Colorado, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Aurora; Colorado School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Aurora
3 Denver Public Health, Denver Health and Hospital Authority, Colorado; University of Colorado, Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, Aurora
4 Apex Family Medicine, Denver, Colorado