| Title |
The Use of Online Posts to Identify Barriers to and Facilitators of HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Comparison to a Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
AIDS and Behavior, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10461-017-2011-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alisse Hannaford, Madeleine Lipshie-Williams, Joanna L. Starrels, Julia H. Arnsten, Jessica Rizzuto, Phillip Cohen, Damon Jacobs, Viraj V. Patel |
| Abstract |
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) remains an under-utilized HIV prevention tool among men who have sex with men (MSM). To more comprehensively elucidate barriers and facilitators to PrEP use among US MSM, we conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed published articles and content analysis of online posts about PrEP. We searched peer-reviewed databases (Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar) using MESH headings and keywords about PrEP and/or HIV prevention from 2005 to 2015. We included original studies among MSM in the US that reported on barriers, facilitators, or other factors related to PrEP use. We also searched online posts and associated comments (news articles, opinion pieces, blogs and other social media posts) in diverse venues (Facebook, Slate Outward, Huffington Post Gay Voices, Queerty, and My PrEP Experience blog) to identify posts about PrEP. We used content analysis to identify themes and compare potential differences between the peer-reviewed literature and online posts. We identified 25 peer-reviewed articles and 28 online posts meeting inclusion criteria. We identified 48 unique barriers and 46 facilitators to using PrEP. These 94 themes fit into six overarching categories: (1) access (n = 14), (2) attitudes/beliefs (n = 24), (3) attributes of PrEP (n = 13), (4) behaviors (n = 11), (5) sociodemographic characteristics (n = 8), and (6) social network (n = 6). In all categories, analysis of online posts resulted in identification of a greater number of unique themes. Thirty-eight themes were identified in the online posts that were not identified in the peer-reviewed literature. We identified barriers and facilitators to PrEP in online posts that were not identified in a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature. By incorporating data both from a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles and from online posts, we have identified salient and novel information about barriers to and facilitators of PrEP use. Traditional research approaches may not comprehensively capture current factors important for designing and implementing PrEP related interventions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 70% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 189 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 15% |
| Researcher | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 35 | 19% |
| Unknown | 53 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 9% |
| Psychology | 16 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 12% |
| Unknown | 65 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2019.
All research outputs
#6,082,654
of 24,228,883 outputs
Outputs from AIDS and Behavior
#898
of 3,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,053
of 449,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AIDS and Behavior
#19
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,228,883 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 449,850 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.