Increasing prescription of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is imperative to ending the HIV epidemic in the United States. The objective of this review was to identify health care provider barriers to PrEP implementation. A systematic review was conducted in February 2019 using PubMed to identify barriers to PrEP prescribing practices in the United States. Targeted search terms surrounding PrEP and providers resulted in 222 original studies, 28 of which were ultimately included in our review, with data collected between 2011 and 2018. Six themes were identified across reviewed studies: (i) a lack of PrEP knowledge, (ii) the presence of the Purview Paradox, which refers to discordance in beliefs between HIV specialists and primary care providers on who should prescribe PrEP, (iii) concerns about PrEP costs, (iv) concerns about behavioral and health consequences, (v) interpersonal stigma, and (vi) concerns about patient adherence. A majority of providers were lacking knowledge regarding PrEP, resulting in discomfort in prescribing PrEP, or limited awareness and understanding of PrEP clinical guidelines. Discrepant opinions were identified regarding whether PrEP was best managed within primary care or specialty clinics. Other barriers included concerns about cost, patient adherence, and follow-up maintenance care. Finally, concerns about risk compensation and discomfort discussing sexual activities with patients who would benefit most from PrEP were apparent. Additional work is needed to prepare providers to prescribe and manage patients on PrEP, optimize PrEP delivery, and reduce provider bias. Future research is needed to identify providers’ attitudes and beliefs regarding innovations in PrEP dosing, task shifting, and novel strategies for PrEP care.

HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly effective at preventing HIV; however, PrEP use among transgender individuals remains low. We conducted a systematic review to identify barriers and facilitators to PrEP uptake, adherence, and persistence among transgender individuals in the United States. We conducted a literature search in PubMed and CINAHL databases in March 2021 and followed PRISMA guidelines. Studies were eligible if they were published in a peer-reviewed journal and reported interest, uptake, adherence, and/or persistence of PrEP use among transgender individuals. Articles that did not disaggregate results for transgender participants were excluded. Data from included articles were coded using content analysis and narratively synthesized using a framework matrix. We screened 254 unique articles published after US Food and Drug Administration approval of PrEP, and 33 articles were included in the review. Five themes were identified in the literature, including (1) PrEP concentrations were lower among individuals taking feminizing hormones, but the difference did not appear clinically significant; (2) concerns regarding interactions between gender-affirming hormone therapy and PrEP remain a large barrier; (3) PrEP initiation may facilitate increased self-advocacy and self-acceptance; (4) lack of trust in medical institutions impacts PrEP uptake; and (5) social networks have a significant influence on PrEP knowledge, interest, and adherence. Additional research is needed involving transgender men and nonbinary persons, and efforts to improve PrEP persistence among the transgender community are needed. Training health care providers to provide inclusive and affirming care is perhaps one of the strongest areas for intervention to increase PrEP uptake and persistence.

Purpose: In this study, we explored experiences and feelings of safety in public facilities in relation to psychological well-being among transgender and gender nonconforming (TGNC) youth in the Midwest in the summer of 2016, in the context of ongoing legislative proposals and regulations regarding school and public bathroom use in the United States. Methods: We used a mixed-method approach, with (1) a self-administered, paper-and-pencil survey of 120 TGNC youth, focusing on differences of self-esteem, resilience, quality of life (QoL), perceived stigma, feelings of safety, and experiences of public facility use and (2) two focus group interviews (n=9) in which TGNC youth discussed individual perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of bathroom use outside participants' homes. The samples consisted predominantly of individuals assigned female at birth and currently of trans-masculine identity. Results: TGNC youth in our sample who reported that they had felt unsafe in bathrooms due to appearance or gender identity had significantly lower levels of resilience (mean_{(felt safe)}=125.7 vs. mean_{(felt unsafe)}=116.1; p=0.03, Cohen's d=0.44) and QoL (mean_{(felt safe)}=59.1 vs. mean_{(felt unsafe)}=51.9; p=0.04, Cohen's d=0.39), compared to those who felt safe. Meanwhile, feeling unsafe in bathrooms was associated with a greater level of perceived LGBT stigma (mean_{(felt safe)}=2.3 vs. mean_{(felt unsafe)}=2.6; p=0.03, Cohen's d=0.41) and problematic anxiety in the past year (χ² (1)=4.06; p=0.04). Individuals in the focus groups provided specific examples of their experiences of and concerns about locker room or bathroom use in public facilities, and on the impact of school bathroom-related policies and legislation on them. Conclusion: Perceptions of safety related to bathroom use are related to psychological well-being among TGNC youth. Our predominantly trans-masculine youth sample indicated that choice of bathroom and locker room use is important and that antiharassment policies need to support students' use of their choice of bathrooms. This is particularly important information given debate of so-called bathroom bills, which attempt to restrict public bathroom use for TGNC youth, creating less choice and more stress and fear among these individuals.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) are disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic. Despite the promise of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in reducing HIV transmission risk, barriers for uptake and persistence exist. We sought to identify whether GBM in a nationwide cohort who have not yet initiated PrEP (n = 906) would prefer to get PrEP-related care from a primary care provider (PCP) compared to a specialist clinic or provider. We then sought to identify their level of interest and factors associated with preference for using home-based PrEP services (i.e., HB-PrEP), defined to participants as conducting HIV/STI self-testing from home with PrEP prescription mailing after an initial in-person clinic visit. We examined the associations of demographics, sexual HIV transmission risk, concern about frequent medical checkups associated with PrEP, health care access, and PrEP intentions with preferences for healthcare provider type and HB-PrEP. Concern about frequent medical checkups were associated with preferring a PCP for PrEP-related care, but men who perceived a barrier to bringing up the topic of PrEP with a doctor preferred a specialist clinic or provider more than a PCP. HB-PrEP was more appealing for younger men and those engaged in sexual HIV transmission risk, suggesting HB-PrEP could help reach GBM most vulnerable to HIV and in need of PrEP. HB-PrEP expansion has potential to increase PrEP uptake and persistence among GBM, particularly for men with barriers to clinic-based care and higher intentions to initiate PrEP. Clinical guidelines regarding HB-PrEP are needed to expand its use.