There are many challenges to accessing PrEP and thus low uptake in the United States. This review (2007–2017) of PrEP implementation identified barriers to PrEP and interventions to match those barriers. The final set of articles (n = 47) included content on cognitive aspects of HIV service providers and individuals at risk for infection, reviews, and case studies. Cognitive barriers and interventions regarding patients and providers included knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about PrEP. The “purview paradox” was identified as a key barrier—HIV specialists often do not see HIV-negative patients, while primary care physicians, who often see uninfected patients, are not trained to provide PrEP. Healthcare systems barriers included lack of communication about, funding for, and access to PrEP. The intersection between PrEP-stigma, HIV-stigma, transphobia, homophobia, and disparities across gender, racial, and ethnic groups were identified; but few interventions addressed these barriers. We recommend multilevel interventions targeting barriers at multiple socioecological domains.

More quickly and more vividly than they could have anticipated, people living with (PLWH) and those at-risk for HIV felt the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as they were asked to shelter in place and distance themselves from others. Over the months of March and April 2020, around the time shelter-in-place orders accelerated, community-based organizations (CBOs) have closed, medical offices have cut hours, and medical personnel have shifted from primary care to COVID-19 hospital units. We assess the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the HIV Continuum of Care and Prevention-that is, testing, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and primary care-and propose a course of action so that we may end the HIV epidemic in this decade.

Responding to the growing demand for scientific understanding of adoption and uptake of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), numerous dissemination and implementation (“D&I”) models have been proposed in the extant literature. This review aimed to identify community-specific constructs with the potential to help researchers engage community partners in D&I studies or deploy EBIs. We identified 74 D&I models targeting community-level changes. We built on Tabak et al.’s narrative review that identified 51 D&I models published up to 2012 and identified 23 D&I models published between 2012 and 2020 from the Health Research & Practice website (16 models) and PubMed database (7 models). Three coders independently examined all 74 models looking for community-specific engagement constructs. We identified five community engagement constructs: (1) Communication, (2) Partnership Exchange, (3) Community Capacity Building, (4) Leadership, and (5) Collaboration. Of the 74 models, 20% reflected all five constructs; 32%, four; 22%, three; 20%, two; and 5%, only one. Few models with strong community content have been introduced since 2009. This article bridges the community-engaged and D&I research literature by identifying community engagement constructs reflected in existing D&I models, targeting community-level changes. Implications for future research and practice are discussed. Responding to the growing demand for scientific understanding of adoption and uptake of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), numerous dissemination and implementation (“D&I”) models have been proposed. This review aimed to identify community-specific constructs with the potential to help researchers engage community partners in D&I studies or deploy EBIs. We identified 74 D&I models targeting community-level changes, published between 2012 and 2020. Three coders independently examined all 74 models looking for community-specific engagement constructs. We identified five community engagement constructs: (1) Communication, (2) Partnership Exchange, (3) Community Capacity Building, (4) Leadership, and (5) Collaboration. Of the 74 models, 20% reflected all five constructs; 32%, four; 22%, three; 20%, two; and 5%, only one. This article identified community engagement constructs reflected in existing D&I models targeting community-level changes. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Methodological limitations in PrEP implementation studies may explain why PrEP implementation is lagging. This methodological review provides a description and critique of the methods used to identify barriers to PrEP implementation in the United States (2007–18). For each selected article, we provide: (1) research questions; (2) measures; (3) design; (4) sample (size and type); and (5) theoretical orientation. Among 79 articles which identified knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral and social/structural barriers to PrEP implementation, 51 (65%) were quantitative; 25 (32%) qualitative; and 3 (4%) were mixed-methods; overall, just one-half described a conceptual approach. About two-thirds of articles were conducted with patients and one-third with healthcare providers. Our review reveals a paucity of longitudinal, mixed-methods, and ethnographic/observational research and guiding theoretical frameworks; thus, the applicability of results are limited. We recommend that interventions aimed at PrEP implementation address barriers situated at multiple ecological domains, and thus improve PrEP access, uptake, and adherence.

Injectable cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB/RPV), administered bimonthly by a medical provider, is convenient and improves privacy and medication management. One year after approval, myriad implementation barriers threaten the access and sustainability of this life-saving innovation: (1) eligibility issues (viral suppression, drug resistance, and failed oral regimens); (2) injection requires medical provider and transportation to facility; (3) strict medication adherence; (4) life challenges—mental health, homelessness, joblessness; and (5) lack of insurance and high cost. Universal implementation of CAB/RPV calls for social, human, and health organizations to partner and provide HIV continuum of care and prevention services to facilitate CAB/RPV access and maintenance and for transparent health insurance billing practices to abate uncertainty concerning CAB/RPV's classification as a pharmaceutical or medical benefit and related cost implications.

Background: Given the close connection between human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and substance use disorder (SUD), access to integrated HIV and SUD services is critical for individuals experiencing both challenges and their biopsychosocial conditions.Method: Adopting an integrative method, this systematic review included 23 empirical studies published between 2000 and 2018. Articles investigated providers’ and clients’ perspectives on barriers to accessing integrated HIV and SUD services in various service settings (e.g., HIV primary care, SUD treatment, pharmacy).Results: Using a client-centered relational framework, we identified barriers in three relational domains with “the client” as the focus of each: client-provider, client-organization, and client-system. The review shows that (1) barriers to HIV and SUD services do not exist in isolation, but in the dynamics within and across three relational domains; (2) service providers and clients often have different perceptions about what constitutes a barrier and the origin of such barriers; and (3) interprofessional and interorganizational collaborations are crucial for integrating HIV and SUD services.Conclusion: This review points out the limitations of the conventional paradigm grouping barriers to service integration into isolated domains (client, provider, organization, or system). Reforms in service arrangements and provider training are recommended to address barriers to integrated services.