Despite high levels of efficacy, the implementation of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as a strategy to prevent new HIV infection has been slow. Studies show that PrEP works so long as it is taken, making adherence one of the great challenges of effective PrEP implementation alongside issues of access and uptake. Given that effective PrEP use requires ongoing self-administration of pills by people at high risk of HIV acquisition, it is a strategy best understood not as simply biomedical, but as biobehavioral or biopsychosocial, meaning that that social, psychological, cultural, and structural factors all contribute to the success or failure of the intervention. The willingness of people at risk of HIV to take up and adhere to PrEP depends greatly upon social understandings – whether it is seen as effective, as a healthy option, and a socially acceptable strategy for preventing HIV. Stigma – unfavorable associations – can negatively influence the implementation of PrEP. Because it is associated with high-risk sexual activity, PrEP risks multiple stigmas that can differ according to specific cultural conditions. This includes the stigma of being related to HIV (which may also relate to other stigmas, such as homosexuality, sex work, and/or drug use) and the stigma of PrEP being an alternative to condoms (as condom use is associated with responsible sexual activity). PrEP-related stigma has emerged as a significant social harm that can arise from PrEP research participation, reported by trial participants from a range of different trial sites, different trial populations, and spanning different continents. Social marketing needs to redress PrEP-related stigmas through health promotion campaigns aimed at clinicians, HIV-affected communities, and people at high risk of HIV who might benefit from PrEP access. PrEP access needs to be reframed as a positive and responsible option to help people remain HIV-negative.

Background: Media exposés and academic literature reveal high rates of bullying and harassment of medical students, most commonly by consultant physicians and/or surgeons. Recent reports reveal the medical profession to be characterised by hierarchy, with verbal abuse a ‘rite of passage’, as well as sexist and racist behaviours. Methods: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with ten current or recently graduated medical students from Sydney-based medical schools. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. Results: Hierarchy, and a culture of self-sacrifice, resilience and deference, were identified as problematic elements of the medical profession. In the minds of participants, these factors created barriers to reporting mistreatment, as participants felt reporting led to being labelled a ‘troublemaker’, affecting career progression. Additionally, participants stated that avenues of recourse were unclear and did not guarantee confidentiality or desired outcomes. Conclusions: Mistreatment is continuing in clinical teaching and has negative consequences on medical students’ mental health and learning. Structural change is needed to combat institutionalised mistreatment to ensure the wellbeing of future doctors and high quality patient care.

Introduction: This study aimed to explore the experiences of healthcare access in a diverse sample of trans and gender diverse individuals with complex needs using qualitative methods. We recruited 12 individuals using trans community-based networks facilitated by the Gender Centre. Each individual participated in an in-depth, semi structured interview conducted by a peer interviewer. Interviews were analysed thematically. Findings: Participants had a range of complex health needs to manage, including ongoing access to gender-affirming hormones, mental health care and sexual health care. Some also had chronic diseases. Accordingly, scheduling appointments and affording the co-payments required were major preoccupations. Most participants were not in full time work, and economic hardship proved to be a major compounding factor in issues of healthcare access, impacting on the choice of clinician or practice. Other barriers to accessing health included issues within health services, such as disrespectful attitudes, misgendering, ‘deadnaming’ (calling the person by their previous name), displaying an excessive interest is aspects of the participants’ life that were irrelevant to the consultation, and displaying ignorance of trans services such that the participants felt an obligation to educate them. In addition, participants noted how stereotyped ideas of trans people could result in inaccurate assumptions about their healthcare needs. Positive attributes of services were identified as respectful communication styles, clean, welcoming spaces, and signs that indicated professionalism, care and openness, such as relevant information pamphlets and visibility of LGBTIQ service orientation. Participants valued peer-based advice very highly, and some would act on and trust medical advice from peers above advice from medical professionals. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate a need for comprehensive wrap-around service provision for trans people with complex needs which includes a substantial peer-based component, and addresses physical and mental health and social services conveniently and affordably.