Abstract
In the United States (U.S.), more than 12 million women reported illicit drug use in the past month. Drug use has been linked to increased risk for HIV, but little is known about the uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to prevent HIV among women who use drugs (WWUD). Following the PRISMA guideline, we conducted a multi-database literature search to assess engagement along the PrEP care continuum among WWUD in the U.S. Seven studies with a total of 755 women were included in the review: 370 (49%) Black, 126 (16.7%) Hispanics, and 259 (34.3%) Whites. Employing random-effect models, data indicate 20.6% (95% CI 8.7%, 32.4%) of WWUD were aware of PrEP, and 60.2% (95% CI 52.2%, 68.2%) of those aware were also willing to use PrEP. Notwithstanding study limitations, our findings suggest there may be potential to increase PrEP uptake among WWUD, but efforts must first concentrate on improving PrEP awareness among this population.
Resumen
En los Estados Unidos (EE. UU.), más de 12 millones de mujeres reportaron el uso de drogas ilícitas en el último mes. El uso de drogas se ha relacionado con un mayor riesgo de contraer el VIH, pero se sabe poco sobre la aceptación de la profilaxis preexposición (PrEP) para prevenir el VIH entre las mujeres que consumen drogas (MQCD). Siguiendo la guía de PRISMA, realizamos una búsqueda bibliográfica en múltiples bases de datos para evaluar el compromiso a lo largo de la cascada de atención de PrEP entre MQCD en los EE. UU. Se incluyeron siete estudios con un total de 755 mujeres en la revisión: 370 (49%) afroamericanas, 126 (16,7%) hispanas y 259 (34,3%) blancas. Empleando modelos de efectos aleatorios, los datos indican que el 20,6% (IC 95% = 8,7%, 32,4%) de MQCD tenían conocimiento de la PrEP, y un impresionante 60,2% (IC 95% = 52,2%, 68,2%) de las informadas también estaban dispuestas a utilizer la PrEP. A pesar de las limitaciones del estudio, nuestros hallazgos sugieren que puede haber un potencial para aumentar la aceptación de PrEP entre MQCD, pero los esfuerzos deben concentrarse primero en mejorar la conciencia de PrEP entre esta población.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
By 2013, women accounted for almost half of all 24.6 million people who reported past-month illicit drug use in the United States [1]. Of the HIV diagnoses attributed to injection drug use, more than 40% were among women [2]. Women who use drugs (WWUD) are at elevated risk for HIV acquisition [2] for various reasons, such as, receptive syringe sharing and drug-influenced disinhibited sexual risk behaviors, as well as by the high prevalence of transactional sex and syndemic risk factors observed in this population (violence, poverty, disempowerment and lack of care access) [3,4,5] One study conducted in 20 United States (U.S.) cities indicated that two-fifths of 2305 women who inject drugs reported selling sex for money, goods or drugs at least once in the past year, with the majority of sex exchange encounters involving condomless sex [6]. An immediate and effective tool is urgently needed to supplement behavioral prevention approaches (e.g., condom use, syringe exchange) to prevent HIV acquisition and transmission among WWUD [7,8,9,10,11].
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) via once daily oral administration of Truvada (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate), a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved HIV anti-retroviral medication, has been shown to be highly efficacious in reducing HIV incidence among high-risk populations [12,13,14,15]. However, the benefits of PrEP remain largely unrealized in real-world settings due to various individual and contextual barriers across the PrEP care continuum (i.e., PrEP awareness, willingness to use PrEP, linkage to PrEP care, PrEP uptake, retention, and adherence) [16, 17]. As the entry stage to the PrEP care continuum, PrEP awareness/willingness to use is essential; no further actions can be taken to achieve sustained PrEP adherence and risk reduction benefits unless this stage has been achieved. Recent studies have revealed a moderate level of PrEP awareness or willingness to use among several key populations, including men who have sex with men (MSM) and sero-discordant couples [18,19,20,21,22].
Furthermore, Choopanya et al. [12] conducted a clinical trial to assess the efficacy of PrEP among Thai men and women who inject drugs (PWID), and found significantly lower HIV incidence among those taking daily Truvada (0.35 vs. 0.68 per 100 person-year), with showing more effective among women as they had lower incidence compared to men in the treatment group (0.20 vs. 0.39 per 100 person-year). Despite the demonstrated efficacy of PrEP among PWID and the elevated risk of HIV acquisition among WWUD, few studies have assessed the implementation of PrEP in this group or explored the challenges/opportunities across the PrEP care continuum to inform future prevention intervention efforts among WWUD [23]. Although no studies have revealed the proportion of WWUD who are currently using PrEP, limited PrEP research involving WWUD in the U.S has revealed that participants have been highly satisfied with PrEP and considered PrEP as an essential tool for HIV prevention [24]. PrEP recipients have reported no adverse impact on quality of life as a result of taking PrEP [25], and other participants would accept PrEP with caution [26]. In spite of these limited observations, characterization of the key stages of the PrEP care continuum among WWUD remains poorly understood in the U.S.
Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline (http://www.prisma-statement.org/), we gathered evidence from published studies and meta-analytically described key stages along the PrEP continuum among WWUD in the U.S., including all available studies with rigorous study designs. This systematic review and meta-analysis is meant to provide empirical guidance for future targeted PrEP programs and interventions among this particularly high-risk group.
Methods
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
Published articles were included if they: (a) sampled women or reported data separately for women and men who reported either injection or non-injection illicit drug use (e.g., marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, hallucinogens); (b) used quantitative inferential study designs (e.g., randomized control trials, cross-sectional/cohort studies); (c) reported quantitative measures (e.g., proportion) on any stage of the PrEP care continuum (i.e., PrEP awareness, acceptance/willingness to use PrEP, PrEP uptake/use) or provided sufficient information to calculate pooled estimates; (d) were peer-reviewed and published in English between January 1, 2012 until July 5, 2018; and (e) can be searched from indexed databases or published sources. Our search start date parameter was selected to coincide with U.S. FDA approval of PrEP for HIV prevention among individuals aged 18 or older [27].
Exclusion Criteria
The exclusion criteria included: (a) descriptive studies (e.g., case reports) or qualitative studies without quantitative measurement; (b) studies that did not report results for a segregated subgroup of WWUD (e.g., a mixed sampling of people who use drugs and people who do not use drugs); (c) reviews/meta-analysis; and (d) theoretical/modeling studies without original data.
Information Sources, Search and Study Selection
Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive literature search of the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and GOOGLE SCHOLAR. Our Boolean search queries were: (“HIV” OR “human immunodeficiency virus” OR “AIDS” OR “acquired immunodeficiency syndrome”) AND (“PrEP” OR “pre-exposure prophylaxis”) AND (“woman (women)” OR “female(s)” OR “girl(s)”) AND (“drug use” OR “drug-using” OR “drug abuse” OR “drug dependence” OR “substance abuse” OR “substance dependence”). We also searched through conference proceedings, as well as references from articles/reviews that met our inclusion criteria. Two reviewers (CZ and YL) independently reviewed articles identified in the initial search. The interrater reliability was > 90%, and disagreement between reviewers was resolved by discussion.
Data Collection and Quality of Evidence Assessment
Two reviewers independently extracted data from eligible articles using a standardized form to record the following information: (a) location and year of the study conducted, (b) demographic characteristics of participants (e.g., age, race/ethnicity), (c) sample size, (d) study design, (e) recruitment strategy, (f) key measurements (e.g., PrEP awareness and willingness to use), and (g) key findings and notes or other informative features. For studies with duplicate publications [28, 29], we reported the study only once in the analyses, with the most complete data included. Three studies reported PrEP awareness [30,31,32], and six studies reported willingness to use PrEP [28,29,30,31,32,33] specifically among WWUD. In addition, we employed the GRADE rating scheme to evaluate the quality of evidence from each individual study using recommended criteria (i.e. risk of bias, precision, consistency, directness) [34].
Statistical Analysis
Measures
Prevalence of PrEP awareness (i.e. proportion of those who had ever heard of PrEP among all interviewed WWUD) and willingness to use PrEP (i.e. proportion of those who self-reported willingness to take PrEP among all interviewed WWUD) were the key measures in the current analysis.
Assessment of Heterogeneity and Publication Bias
We used the I2-statistic and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) to depict heterogeneity. The I2-statistic describes the percentage of the variability in effect estimates that is due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error, with higher percentages indicating higher heterogeneity [35, 36]. Heterogeneity statistic (i.e., tau-squared) and its corresponding p value were also reported for each analysis. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots and Egger’s test [37]. Funnel plots were employed to visually assess the asymmetry, while Egger’s test was used to test the asymmetry statistically.
Data Synthesis, Subgroup and Sensitivity Analyses
We employed the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model to weight and pool the individual estimates [38], as all included studies were conducted among populations across heterogeneous settings [35]. Unlike the fixed effects model that assumed all studies shared identical true effect sizes, the random effects model was designed to capture variances of estimates across studies [35, 39]. Forest plots were used to illustrate the aggregate findings. We also performed subgroup analyses to examine the pooled estimates if the pooled estimates differed by sample (e.g., women who use drugs vs. women who inject drugs only, men and women [mixed] who use drugs vs. men and women (mixed) who inject only) because drug use behavior may correlate with HIV risk and PrEP utilization. Sensitivity analyses were employed to examine the stability of the pooled estimates by evaluating whether the overall pooled estimates were sensitive to exclusion of any individual studies (e.g., study with highest or lowest weight, studies with lowest rating, and with smallest or largest sample size). We performed all statistical and meta-analysis using STATA 15 (College Station, TX). The STATA Metaprop command was used to pool the data as it was particularly designed for binomial data, using the binomial distribution to model within-study variances [40]. Based upon this strategy, the Method of Moments is used to estimate the mean, but Maximum Likelihood is used to estimate heterogeneity. [38, 40] The Metaprop command computes 95% CI using the score statistics (for smaller sample size) that allows incorporation of the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation [41] of proportion to generate admissible pooled estimates within the range of [0, 1], which has been validated by multiple studies [40, 42, 43].
Narrative Synthesis
In order to identify factors that may affect PrEP use among WWUD, we employed a narrative synthesis approach to identify predisposing (e.g., patient-level factors) and enabling factors (e.g., available resources that may facilitate PrEP use) as well as needs components (e.g., health status barriers, belief or perceptions) based upon the Behavioral Model of Healthcare Utilization for Vulnerable Populations [23, 44].
Results
Study Selection, Characteristics, and Risk of Biases Across Studies
Our initial search yielded 203 citations. After title/abstract screening, 109 references were full-text reviewed, with seven studies meeting all inclusion criteria (Fig. S1). Among these publications, findings from one abstract [28] overlapped with another article [29], and two articles reported findings from the same study [33, 45]. Another study reported separate information for women who inject drugs in New York City and Long Island, and we treated these two data points separately [32]. A total of eight articles and one abstract, reporting findings from seven individual studies, were retained after rigorous selection.
Details about each included study are presented in Table 1. We pooled the numbers of WWUD from all selected studies. Our pooled sample size is 755, including 370 Black (49%), 126 Hispanic (16.7%), and 259 (34.3%) White women. All studies used cross-sectional designs; three were conducted in New York [31, 32, 46], and one each in Maryland [30], Washington DC [28, 29], Connecticut [33, 45], and Massachusetts [47]. Three studies (reported by three articles and one abstract) were secondary data analyses of the National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS) data [28, 29, 31, 32]. Four studies used convenience sampling to recruit participants from health services settings, including syringe exchange and sexual health services [30], opioid detoxification programs [47], or methadone maintenance programs [33, 45]. Among the included studies, six reported prevalence of PrEP awareness [28, 30,31,32,33, 45, 46] with three reporting women-specific data; [30,31,32] four reporting prevalence of PrEP use willingness and all four reporting women-specific information [30, 33, 47]. Most studies used self-reported HIV status [28, 29, 31,32,33, 45,46,47], and some studies did not report ethnicity/race specific data in relation to PrEP use [28, 29, 31,32,33, 45,46,47].
PrEP was usually referred to as “a pill to prevent HIV” in these included studies. In most studies, PrEP awareness was assessed by a single question, such as “HIV Pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, is a way for people who do not have HIV to prevent HIV infection by taking a pill every day?”; or “Have you heard of HIV PrEP before today?”; or “Before today, have you ever heard of people who do not have HIV taking antiretroviral medicines, to keep from getting HIV?” [28,29,30,31,32,33, 45,46,47]. For willingness to use PrEP, all studies assessed participants’ willingness by asking general questions, such as “If a daily HIV pill to prevent you from getting HIV was available in DC for free or was covered by your health insurance, how likely would you be to take it?”, or “How interested would you be in taking a pill every day to prevent HIV infection?” [28, 29]. One study assessed participants’ willingness to take PrEP using specific risk reduction information (i.e., “Would you be willing to take a once a day pill every day to lower your risk 90% (or 40%) of becoming HIV positive?”) [47]. In addition to these two key measures (awareness and willingness to use), several studies also reported participants’ perception of potential risk compensation (PrEP users may conduct more risky behaviors as they feel protected by taking PrEP). Questions assessing risk compensation included “I will no longer need to sterilize or use clean needles/use condoms or practice safe sex if I am taking pills to prevent HIV infection” or “Would you take PrEP if you still had to use condoms to be fully protected from HIV?” [28,29,30, 33, 45, 47].
Synthesis of Results
In studies that involved WWUD samples, the pooled prevalence of PrEP awareness was 20.6% (95% CI 8.7%, 32.4%). However, once these participants were informed of PrEP, willingness of PrEP use was 60.2% (95% CI 55.2%, 64.1%) among injectors and non-injectors and 57.3% (95% CI 48.8%, 65.9%) among injectors only, respectively. Very few women reported PrEP uptake (i.e., ever taking PrEP) across included studies [31, 33, 45]. For example, in the study by Walters et al. (2017), < 1% of injectors (1 of 118) reported ever using PrEP [31]. In another study involving mixed men and women who use drugs, only 1.8% ever used PrEP [33, 45]. No data for PrEP care retention and adherence were reported in any included studies (Figs. S2, S3). In addition to measurements of the PrEP cascade, four studies reported respondents’ perception of potential risk compensation under the hypothetical scenario of initiating PrEP (Table 2) [28,29,30, 33, 45, 47]. The pooled proportion of perceived risk compensation among all men and women (mixed) who use drugs was 26.1% (95% CI 6.9%, 45.2%), and among men and women (mixed) who inject drugs was only 18.4% (95% CI 9.9%, 26.8%). No gender-specific data regarding risk compensation perceptions were available (Table 2; Fig. 1, Fig. S6).
Risk of Biases Within and Across Studies
The quality of evidence for most outcomes was scored as low or very low, primarily due to the nature of observational study design, limited sample size, and generalizability (Table 1). Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot, where the standard error of the effect size was plotted against the effect size. Examining the funnel plot revealed that publication bias was present, as the graph showed slight asymmetry within the funnel (Figs. S4, S5, S7). We were unable to conduct further tests on the funnel plot asymmetry, as there were fewer than ten studies included and the power was too low to distinguish chance from statistically significant asymmetry [37, 48]. We further examined the heterogeneity using I2-statistic (ranged from 50.8 to 91.7%) across different subgroup analyses; this indicated moderate to high heterogeneity of the studies. p-values of heterogeneity Chi squares also indicated significant heterogeneity across included studies (Table 2).
Additional Analyses
Sensitivity analyses were conducted by removing studies with highest and lowest weight, studies with largest and smallest sample size, and studies rated as “very low” by GRADE scoring scheme, respectively. Comparing outcomes from sensitivity analyses with the original outcome, no difference was found from the original sensitivity analyses (not shown).
From the narrative analysis, predisposing factors of PrEP willingness among people who use drugs (PWUD) included experience of intimate partner violence, younger age and multi-partnership. Enabling factors included receiving information from their doctors, and needs components were composed of increased perceived and behavioral HIV risk, depression, and neurological impairments. For PrEP awareness among PWUD, route of drug administration and sexual orientation were considered as predisposing factors, while discussing PrEP at a syringe exchange program was considered as an enabling component (Table 3).
Discussion
Our meta-analytic review included 755 WWUD from seven studies (604 from four women-only samples). The low awareness of PrEP among WWUD (21%) raises concern for this high-risk group, especially when considering this group may have frequent contact with harm reduction and health professionals via various encounters (e.g., settings providing needle exchanges and sexual health services [30], opioid detoxification programs [47], and methadone maintenance programs). However, once WWUD were informed of PrEP, their willingness to take PrEP increased considerably (60% for WWUD, and 57% for women who inject drugs). The discrepancy between lower awareness and higher willingness represents a missed opportunity for initiating PrEP among WWUD who are willing to take PrEP if they are well-informed. After including male drug users in the analyses, both PrEP awareness (20.6% vs. 17.2%) and willingness to use (60.2% vs. 52.1%) decreased slightly. Our findings suggest that WWUD’s PrEP awareness were higher compared to male counterparts who use drugs, but lower compared to MSM (PrEP awareness ranged from 27 to 46% among MSM) [49,50,51]. On the other hand, WWUD’s willingness was similar or higher than their male counterparts, but PrEP uptake among WWUD much lower than MSM [49,50,51]. This higher level of awareness and uptake among MSM may stem from various PrEP initiatives primarily focusing on this population; such initiatives have been lagging for individuals who use drugs. In settings where PWUD usually seek help (e.g., drug treatment services), it is highly plausible that health professionals could engage their patients/clients about PrEP use through counselling and treatment referrals. For instance, in New York State the Department of Health has successfully initiated a PrEP service in established syringe exchange programs and sexual health clinics to assist high-risk individuals access PrEP care [52].
In addition to examining PrEP awareness and willingness to use PrEP, potential risk compensation was examined among men and women (mixed) who use drugs. Although < 20% of PWUD indicated they would “no longer need condoms during sexual episodes or sterilized needles during injections after PrEP use”, these estimates were based on complete relinquishment of other forms of protection (e.g., elimination of condoms/clean needles after taking PrEP). If participants’ perception of risk compensation was evaluated conservatively (e.g., reduction in the use of condom/clean needles), a majority of participants expressed potential tendency for risk compensation while taking PrEP [33, 45]. Though PrEP clinical trials have yet to observe any risk compensation behaviors [14, 53], increased prevalence of risky sexual behaviors (e.g., condomless sex, increased sexual partners) and sexually transmitted infections (STI) have been reported among PrEP users in several observational studies [54, 55]. However, none of the included studies contained data depicting gender-specific perceptions of potential risk compensation in these included studies. Future studies should closely monitor actual risk compensation behaviors among PWUD and are taking PrEP, and future PrEP implementation interventions targeting individuals who use drugs should include education on both the benefits and limitations of PrEP to avoid potential risk compensation behaviors.
Our meta-analysis has several strengths, including (a) it is the first study to synthesize PrEP awareness and willingness to use among WWUD as well as among all PWUD in the U.S. by subgroup analyses; (b) we employed the STATA Metaprop command with random effect models to accurately accommodate the within-study variances of binominal data; and (c) the PRISMA guideline was strictly followed throughout all procedures.
Several limitations of our review and findings should be noted, most of which derive from the limited number, geographic scope, and specificity of existing studies on PrEP among WWUD. These limitations constrained the representativeness and generalizability of our findings. First, of the seven included studies, all were conducted in urban areas in the Northeast U.S., no studies have been conducted among WWUD in the Deep South or rural areas, which have among the highest rates of HIV incidence and prevalence across the U.S. [56,57,58]. In addition, half of the included studies failed to provide gender-specific data [28, 29, 33, 45,46,47]. Even for studies with gender-specific data, WWUD were only a small proportion of all recruited participants [33, 45]. Thus, regional and gender under-representativeness may not reflect the full scope of sexual risk and HIV transmission dynamics among WWUD in the U.S.
Second, there is a lack of data regarding PrEP uptake, retention, and adherence among this at-risk group as a whole. Among all included studies, few participants reported PrEP use [31, 33, 45]. It is estimated that only 5.3% to 15.2% of high-risk individuals achieve sustained PrEP use, due to individual, social, and structural barriers interrupting the continuum of PrEP care [16, 59]. The scarcity of data regarding the PrEP care continuum among WWUD requires future studies to address this gap.
Third, several included studies failed to report demographic-specific data regarding PrEP use among WWUD. Only one study examined racial differences in HIV risk factors, including PrEP awareness and willingness to use among individuals with opioid use disorders [46]. Lack of sufficient demographic-specific data regarding PrEP use may hinder the deployment of interventions tailored to WWUD with various cultural characteristics.
Fourth, half of the included studies employed secondary data analyses [28, 29, 31, 32], and those studies may not have been originally designed to assess PrEP awareness and willingness. In addition, the rest of the included studies employed convenience sampling strategies to recruit participants from settings providing health services (syringe exchanges and sexual health services [30], opioid detoxification programs [47], and methadone maintenance programs), which may have resulted in under-sampling of hidden and hard-to-reach subpopulations. Omission of these key subgroups may leave important gaps in our understanding regarding HIV epidemics and PrEP implementation in this population [60].
Lastly, the accuracy and reliability of the synthesized effect sizes of PrEP awareness and willingness to use may be affected by the significant heterogeneity, publication and self-reported biases, as well as inconsistent measurements and misclassification of key indicators across studies. For instance, some studies categorized “very likely and somewhat likely” as “willingness to use PrEP” [30, 47], whereas another study categorized “somewhat likely” as “no willingness to use PrEP” [28, 29]. Furthermore, some studies referred to PrEP simply as “a pill” or “anti-HIV medicines” [29, 30, 47, 61], whereas other studies specified PrEP as “Truvada” or “an antiretroviral medication” [31, 32, 46]. Furthermore, all measurements on “PrEP awareness” and “willingness to use” were based upon one single item, and were inconsistent across different studies: some studies asked the likelihood of taking PrEP in the future [33, 45], while another evaluated willingness based upon different hypothetical scenarios [47]. Inconsistent descriptions of PrEP, variations of the cut-off points, and the measurement’s lack of comprehensiveness and consistency may lead to biased synthesized estimates.
Our systematic review revealed several critical deficiencies with regard to current evidence on the PrEP care continuum among U.S. WWUD, including the limited number, scope and specificity of extant studies, as well as limitations in study design. Despite these shortcomings, our meta-analysis provided empirical estimates for the initial two stages along the PrEP care continuum: “PrEP awareness” and “willingness to take PrEP.” Since using PrEP can prevent women from sexual and blood-born transmission of HIV, WWUD, in particular, would benefit from PrEP. Each phase of the PrEP care continuum cascade represents a potential barrier and critical intervention point to achieve sustained PrEP protection. In order to address limitations identified in the current review, we call for comprehensive assessment tools and standardized measures to evaluate each step of the PrEP care continuum among WWUD in future studies.
References
SAMHSA. Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings: DHHS; 2014.
CDC. HIV and Injection Drug Use. 2016; https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/cdc-hiv-idu-fact-sheet.pdf.
Paz-Bailey G, Noble M, Salo K, Tregear SJ. Prevalence of HIV among U.S. female sex workers: systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(10):2318–31.
Khan MR, Berger A, Hemberg J, O’Neill A, Dyer TP, Smyrk K. Non-injection and injection drug use and STI/HIV risk in the United States: the degree to which sexual risk behaviors versus sex with an STI-infected partner account for infection transmission among drug users. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(3):1185–94.
Center for Diseas Control and Prevention. HIV basics: PrEP. 2017; https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html.
Nerlander LM, Hess KL, Rose CE, et al. Exchange sex and HIV infection among women who inject drugs-20 US Cities, 2009. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (1999). 2017;75(Suppl 3):S333–40.
Abad N, Baack BN, O’Leary A, Mizuno Y, Herbst JH, Lyles CM. A systematic review of HIV and STI behavior change interventions for female sex workers in the United States. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(9):1701–19.
Deuba K, Anderson S, Ekstrom AM, et al. Micro-level social and structural factors act synergistically to increase HIV risk among Nepalese female sex workers. Int J Infect. 2016;49:100–6.
Jie W, Xiaolan Z, Ciyong L, et al. A qualitative exploration of barriers to condom use among female sex workers in China. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(10):e46786.
Matovu JK, Ssebadduka NB. Knowledge, attitudes & barriers to condom use among female sex workers and truck drivers in Uganda: a mixed-methods study. Afr Health Sci. 2013;13(4):1027–33.
Shannon K, Strathdee SA, Shoveller J, Rusch M, Kerr T, Tyndall MW. Structural and environmental barriers to condom use negotiation with clients among female sex workers: implications for HIV-prevention strategies and policy. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(4):659–65.
Choopanya K, Martin M, Suntharasamai P, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV infection in injecting drug users in Bangkok, Thailand (the Bangkok Tenofovir Study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet (London, England). 2013;381(9883):2083–90.
Martin M, Vanichseni S, Suntharasamai P, et al. Factors associated with the uptake of and adherence to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in people who have injected drugs: an observational, open-label extension of the Bangkok Tenofovir Study. Lancet HIV. 2017;4(2):e59–66.
Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2587–99.
Liu AY, Cohen SE, Vittinghoff E, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection integrated with municipal- and community-based sexual health services. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(1):75–84.
Kelley CF, Kahle E, Siegler A, et al. Applying a PrEP continuum of care for men who have sex with men in Atlanta, Georgia. Clin Infect Dis: Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2015;61(10):1590–7.
Marrazzo JM, Ramjee G, Richardson BA, et al. Tenofovir-based preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(6):509–18.
Yi S, Tuot S, Mwai GW, et al. Awareness and willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017;20(1):21580.
Lampe MA, Smith DK, Anderson GJ, Edwards AE, Nesheim SR. Achieving safe conception in HIV-discordant couples: the potential role of oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(6):488.e481–8.
Mimiaga MJ, Case P, Johnson CV, Safren SA, Mayer KH. Preexposure antiretroviral prophylaxis attitudes in high-risk Boston area men who report having sex with men: limited knowledge and experience but potential for increased utilization after education. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (1999). 2009;50(1):77–83.
Misra K, Udeagu CC. Disparities in awareness of HIV postexposure and preexposure prophylaxis among notified partners of HIV-positive individuals, New York City 2015-2017. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (1999). 2017;76(2):132–40.
Mitchell JW, Stephenson R. HIV-negative partnered men’s willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis and associated factors among an internet sample of U.S. HIV-negative and HIV-discordant male couples. LGBT Health. 2015;2(1):35–40.
Bazzi AR, Drainoni ML, Biancarelli DL, et al. Systematic review of HIV treatment adherence research among people who inject drugs in the United States and Canada: evidence to inform pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence interventions. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):31.
Shrestha R, Copenhaver M. Exploring the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention among high-risk people who use drugs in treatment. Front Public Health. 2018;6:195.
Kapadia SN, Wu C, Mayer KH, et al. No change in health-related quality of life for at-risk U.S. women and men starting HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): findings from HPTN 069/ACTG A5305. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(12):e0206577.
Footer KHA, Lim S, Rael CT, et al. Exploring new and existing PrEP modalities among female sex workers and women who inject drugs in a US city. AIDS Care. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2019.1587352.
Center for Diseas Control and Prevention. PrEP 101. 2016.
Levin J. Willingness to Use Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Among Community-Recruited Injection Drug Users. Paper presented at: 21st Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; March 3–6, 2014; Boston, MA.
Kuo I, Olsen H, Patrick R, et al. Willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among community-recruited, older people who inject drugs in Washington, DC. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016;164:8–13.
Peitzmeier SM, Tomko C, Wingo E, et al. Acceptability of microbicidal vaginal rings and oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among female sex workers in a high-prevalence US city. AIDS Care. 2017;29:1–5.
Walters SM, Reilly KH, Neaigus A, Braunstein S. 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 Reduct J. 2017;14(1):40.
Walters SM, Rivera AV, Starbuck L, et al. Differences in awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis among groups at-risk for HIV in New York State: New York City and Long Island, NY, 2011-2013. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (1999). 2017;75(Suppl 3):S383–91.
Shrestha R, Altice FL, Huedo-Medina TB, Karki P, Copenhaver M. Willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): an empirical test of the information-motivation-behavioral Skills (IMB) model among high-risk drug users in treatment. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1299–308.
Ryan R HS. How to GRADE the quality of the evidence. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group. 2016; http://cccrg.cochrane.org/author-resources.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2009.
Borenstein M, Higgins JP, Hedges LV, Rothstein HR. Basics of meta-analysis: I(2) is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(1):5–18.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.
Borenstein M, Hedges L, Rothstein H. Meta-analysis fixed effect versus random effects 2007; https://www.meta-analysis.com/downloads/M-a_f_e_v_r_e_sv.pdf. Accessed August 30 2018.
Littell JH, Corcoran J, Pillai V. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
Nyaga VN, Arbyn M, Aerts M. Metaprop: a Stata command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch Public Health = Arch belges de sante publique. 2014;72(1):39.
Freeman M, Tukey J. Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Annu Math Stat. 1950;21(4):607–11.
Arbyn M, Ronco G, Anttila A, et al. Evidence regarding human papillomavirus testing in secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Vaccine. 2012;30(Suppl 5):F88–99.
Dolman L, Sauvaget C, Muwonge R, Sankaranarayanan R. Meta-analysis of the efficacy of cold coagulation as a treatment method for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;121(8):929–42.
Gelberg L, Andersen RM, Leake BD. The behavioral model for vulnerable populations: application to medical care use and outcomes for homeless people. Health Serv Res. 2000;34(6):1273–302.
Shrestha R, Karki P, Altice FL, et al. Correlates of willingness to initiate pre-exposure prophylaxis and anticipation of practicing safer drug- and sex-related behaviors among high-risk drug users on methadone treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;173:107–16.
Metz VE, Sullivan MA, Jones JD, et al. Racial differences in HIV and HCV risk behaviors, transmission, and prevention knowledge among non-treatment-seeking individuals with opioid use disorder. J Psychoact Drugs. 2017;49(1):59–68.
Stein M, Thurmond P, Bailey G. Willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among opiate users. AIDS Behav. 2014;18(9):1694–700.
Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002.
Bauermeister JA, Meanley S, Pingel E, Soler JH, Harper GW. PrEP awareness and perceived barriers among single young men who have sex with men. Curr HIV Res. 2013;11(7):520–7.
Hoff CC, Chakravarty D, Bircher AE, et al. Attitudes towards PrEP and anticipated condom use among concordant HIV-negative and HIV-discordant male couples. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2015;29(7):408–17.
Kuhns LM, Hotton AL, Schneider J, Garofalo R, Fujimoto K. Use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in young men who have sex with men is associated with race, sexual risk behavior and peer network size. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1376–82.
O’Connell D. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) initiatives in New York State: a brief overview. 2015; https://cdn.hivguidelines.org/wp-content/uploads/20160824151355/Dan-OConnell-AI-PrEP-8.261.pdf.
Molina JM, Capitant C, Spire B, et al. On-demand preexposure prophylaxis in men at high risk for HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(23):2237–46.
Barreiro P. Hot news: sexually transmitted infections on the rise in PrEP users. AIDS Rev. 2018;20(1):71.
Montano MA, Dombrowski JC, Dasgupta S, et al. Changes in sexual behavior and STI diagnoses among MSM initiating PrEP in a clinic setting. AIDS Behav. 2018;23:548–55.
Reif S, Geonnotti KL, Whetten K. HIV infection and AIDS in the deep South. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(6):970–3.
Young AM, Rudolph AE, Quillen D, Havens JR. Spatial, temporal and relational patterns in respondent-driven sampling: evidence from a social network study of rural drug users. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014;68(8):792–8.
Center for Diseas Control and Prevention. HIV in the United States by Geography. 2018; https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/geographicdistribution.html.
Wilton J, Kain T, Fowler S, et al. Use of an HIV-risk screening tool to identify optimal candidates for PrEP scale-up among men who have sex with men in Toronto, Canada: disconnect between objective and subjective HIV risk. J Int AIDS Soc. 2016;19(1):20777.
Magnani R, Sabin K, Saidel T, Heckathorn D. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. AIDS (London, England). 2005;19(Suppl 2):S67–72.
Bekker LG, Johnson L, Cowan F, et al. Combination HIV prevention for female sex workers: what is the evidence? Lancet (London, England). 2015;385(9962):72–87.
Acknowledgements
The study was supported by the University of Rochester Center for AIDS Research (Grant No. P30AI078498) and School of Nursing at University of Rochester Medical Center. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the sponsor who had no role in the design or conduct of the study, the writing of this report, or its submission for publication.
Funding
The study was supported by the University of Rochester Center for AIDS Research (P30AI078498) and School of Nursing at University of Rochester Medical Center. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the sponsor who had no role in the design or conduct of the study, the writing of this report, or its submission for publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, C., McMahon, J., Simmons, J. et al. Suboptimal HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Awareness and Willingness to Use Among Women Who Use Drugs in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. AIDS Behav 23, 2641–2653 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-019-02573-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-019-02573-x