HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis programme preferences among sexually active HIV‐negative transgender and gender diverse adults in the United States: a conjoint analysis

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionCurrent implementation efforts have failed to achieve equitable HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) provision for transgender and gender‐diverse (trans) populations. We conducted a choice‐based conjoint analysis to measure preferences for key attributes of hypothetical PrEP delivery programmes among a diverse online sample predominantly comprised of transmasculine and nonbinary individuals in the United States.MethodsBetween April 2022 and June 2022, a national online survey with an embedded conjoint analysis experiment was conducted among 304 trans individuals aged ≥18 years in the United States to assess five PrEP programme attributes: out‐of‐pocket cost; dispensing venue; frequency of visits for PrEP‐related care; travel time to PrEP provider; and ability to bundle PrEP‐related care with gender‐affirming hormone therapy services. Participants responded to five questions, each of which presented two PrEP programme scenarios and one opt‐out option per question and selected their preferred programme in each question. We used hierarchical Bayes estimation and multinomial logistic regression to measure part‐worth utility scores for the total sample and by respondents’ PrEP status.ResultsThe median age was 24 years (range 18–56); 75% were assigned female sex at birth; 54% identified as transmasculine; 32% as nonbinary; 14% as transfeminine. Out‐of‐pocket cost had the highest attribute importance score (44.3%), followed by the ability to bundle with gender‐affirming hormone therapy services (18.7%). Minimal cost‐sharing ($0 out‐of‐pocket cost) most positively influenced the attribute importance of cost (average conjoint part‐worth utility coefficient of 2.5 [95% CI 2.4−2.6]). PrEP‐experienced respondents preferred PrEP delivery in primary care settings (relative utility score 4.7); however, PrEP‐naïve respondents preferred pharmacies (relative utility score 5.1).ConclusionsParticipants preferred programmes that offered PrEP services without cost‐sharing and bundled with gender‐affirming hormone therapy services. Bolstering federal regulations to cover PrEP services and prioritizing programmes to expand low‐barrier PrEP provision are critical to achieving equitable PrEP provision. Community‐engaged implementation research conducted by and in close collaboration with trans community stakeholders and researchers are needed to streamline the design of patient‐centred PrEP programmes and develop implementation strategies that are salient to the diverse sexual health needs of trans patients.