Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Great strides have been made globally toward ending HIV and AIDS as a threat by 2030, although the rate of new HIV infections among men who have sex with men remains very high. Due to their risk of getting HIV and AIDS, utilization of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can potentially reduce the risk of HIV transmission among this population. This study sought to analyze the accessibility, knowledge, and potential barriers and facilitators to assessing PrEP by men who have sex with men. The quantitative method was conducted on 65 men who have sex with men through questionnaires loaded on Kobo Collect. Chi-square test, odds ratios, and logistic regression were used to associate different demographic characteristics with knowledge and significance of barriers in PrEP access using STATA 15. A hotspot map of PrEP and locations was created using QGIS. About 84% of respondents accessed pills from friendly facilities. The remaining accessed them from public hospitals, namely Mpilo and United Bulawayo Hospitals. Over 90% of the respondents were found to be highly knowledgeable. Notably, barriers included lack of information, fear of side effects, pills not accessible, pill taste, odor and size, stigma, and lack of protection from other sexually transmitted infections. Facilitators were educated about PrEP, the existence of friendly health facilities, making pills available at all times, partner support, increased number of friendly health facilities and support groups. Maximizing the potential of PrEP as an efficient HIV-prevention intervention among this population requires ongoing efforts to remove barriers and promote facilitators.

Keywords

men who have sex with men pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake HIV and AIDS

Background

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) have been a global concern for the last four decades as it is chronic and without an effective cure. This means that once a person gets the virus, they will have it for life (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2022a). With proper and good medical care, HIV progression can be effectively managed, that is, as much as it cannot be cured, the progression from being infected with HIV to developing full-blown AIDS can be significantly delayed (Adeagbo et al., 2021; CDC, 2022a). An HIV-infected person can transmit the virus to another person through anal or vaginal sex and by sharing needles and syringes or other drug injection equipment (Adeagbo et al., 2021; CDC, 2022a). One of the critical strategies used to delay the virus’s progression and onset of full-blown AIDS has been the use of viral suppressants (Cusini et al., 2013). Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has become integral in reducing the chances of the spread of HIV and has been extended to men who have sex with men (MSM). The World Health Organization (WHO) and the CDC recommend that individuals at substantial risk of acquiring HIV, including MSM, should take PrEP to minimize their chances of acquiring and transmitting HIV.

PrEP is an HIV-prevention method in which HIV-negative people take a daily pill to reduce their risk of becoming infected if they engage in risky sexual behaviors (McCormack et al., 2016; WHO, 2015a). When used consistently, PrEP has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV-1 infection among adult men and women at very high risk of HIV infection through sex or injection drug use. PrEP is typically used as part of a combination approach that includes regular HIV testing, condom use, and other risk-reduction strategies (UNAIDS, 2016a, 2016b). Significant progress has been made in preventing new HIV infections, although HIV transmission among MSM remains challenging (UNAIDS, 2016a, 2016b). Many countries have laws prohibiting same-sex sexual relations, and Pérez-Jiménez et al. (2009) noted that most interventions for people living with HIV have focused largely on heterosexuals in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa (Khozah & Nunu, 2023). There is a significant lack of programmatic intervention research to address self-management among this population.

PrEP was approved in 2012 by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA, 2019). WHO recommended PrEP as an HIV-prevention method for high-risk groups, including lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender, intersex, asexual, and others (LGBTQIA+). PrEP is now a widely used biomedical intervention, such as oral PrEP and microbicides, available in health care centers worldwide (WHO, 2015b). Three types of PrEP are available: daily oral PrEP, on-demand PrEP (take the pill before and after sex), and long-acting injectable PrEP (Cao et al., 2020). According to Saul et al. (2018), oral PrEP was introduced in 2015 in Zimbabwe as a strategy to reduce HIV incidence among adolescent girls and young women (Saul et al., 2018). PrEP was then expanded to key populations, particularly MSM, transgender people, sex workers, and serodiscordant couples (Saul et al., 2018). Based on the evidence of several clinical trials, PrEP is highly effective in reducing the risk of HIV transmission through sexual intercourse by 99% (CDC, 2022b). However, inconsistency in the uptake of PrEP compromises its effectiveness (Koenig et al., 2013). Different economic, structural, psychological, and social factors influence PrEP uptake and adherence (Liu et al., 2017). Factors negatively affecting PrEP uptake and acceptability include stigma, social norms and beliefs, lack of social support, poverty, and poor health care services (Hood et al., 2016).

According to LGBT+ PRIDE 2021, Global Survey (Ipsos, 2021) targeting about 19,069 adults aged between 18 and 74 years, 80% of the global population identify as heterosexual, 3% as gay or lesbian, 4% as bisexual, 1% as pansexual, 1% as asexual, 1% as other, and 11% do not know or did not say (Pride). Although the LGBTIQ+ community constituted a small percentage of the global population in 2019, 62% of the new infections were among LGBTIQ+ and their partners (UNAIDS, 2019). Many countries have laws criminalizing same-sex sexual behavior, including Zimbabwe. UNAIDS (2019) alludes that MSM living in these countries are five times more likely to live with HIV than countries that do not criminalize same-sex sexual behavior. The reported risk of acquiring HIV was 26 times higher for gay men and MSM than for the rest of the adult male population in 2019 (UNAIDS, 2019). It is reported that approximately 25% of the new infections in Africa were from LGBTIQ+ and their partners in 2018 (UNAIDS, 2019). UNAIDS 2019 Data Report indicates that Sub-Saharan Africa is still the epicenter of the HIV epidemic, with an HIV prevalence of 17.9% in MSM (UNAIDS, 2019).

According to UNAIDS (2019), Zimbabwe had 31% HIV prevalence among MSM, yet the Ministry of Health and Child Care states that information on HIV prevalence among MSM is unknown (UNAIDS, 2019). These numbers are alarming, hence the need for MSM to access sexual and reproductive health services (SRHS) because curbing the HIV epidemic cannot be possible without reaching this population (Gupta & Granich, 2017). Accessing SRHS such as PrEP by MSM in Bulawayo is highly influenced by barriers such as discrimination, stigma and social exclusion (Moyo et al., 2021), and the existence of public health care facilities that have no standardized services that cater for the needs of MSM (Munyimani & Nunu, 2022). This research article aims to explore the accessibility of PrEP, knowledge of PrEP among MSM, potential barriers, and facilitators to improve PrEP uptake among this population.

Methodology

Study Area

The study was conducted in the Bulawayo Metropolitan Province. The area under study has an estimated population of 665,940 (Zimstat, 2022). It is the second largest city in Zimbabwe and is considered a very busy town with diverse communities. According to the HIV and STI Biobehavioral Survey (2020), Bulawayo has 763 MSM. Both public and private health facilities serve the city, with most of these facilities owned and operated by the government (HIV and STI Biobehavioral Survey, 2020). The city is home to many clinics run by the Ministry of Health and Child Care and Bulawayo City Council and three referral hospitals, including United Bulawayo Hospitals, Mpilo Central Hospital, and an inpatient mental health facility called Ingutsheni Hospital. In the city, the private sector also manages many health care facilities. The Study Area map is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Study Area Map

Study Design

A quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted on MSM in Bulawayo. This design enabled the researcher to explore relationships between different variables on PrEP accessibility, knowledge, barriers, and facilitators that influence PrEP utilization among this population.

Target Population

The study population consisted of MSM in Bulawayo. The inclusion criteria for the study were MSM, aged 18 years or older, and assigned male sex at birth. Respondents younger than 18 were excluded from the study as they needed parental consent and might not give accurate responses due to fear and insecurity. The study also identified and mapped all health care facilities that provide PrEP services to MSM.

Sampling

A sample size calculator, RAOSOFT, was used to calculate the sample size at a 90% confidence interval, 10% margin of error, and 50% response distribution. According to the HIV and STI Biobehavioral Survey (2020), Bulawayo has 763 MSM, and the sample size was 63 (HIV and STI Biobehavioral Survey, 2020). To gain access to this population (MSM), the Sexual Rights Centre (SRC) (an organization that provides services for MSM and runs support groups for this community) assisted in the recruitment of respondents. Respondents were chosen using systematic sampling from databases of the SRC. However, some respondents were purposively selected to participate in the study. Snow-balling was also used to identify other potential respondents through the network of respondents. The respondents were asked to invite other members of MSM who met the inclusion criteria to participate in the study if they were interested. The health care facilities were selected by purposive sampling because they have offered PrEP before.

Data Collection Procedure and Tools

Structured Questionnaire Guide

A structured questionnaire was designed and deployed using KoboToolBox. KoboToolBox is an open and free open-source suite tool used for field data collection and data storage (Lakshminarasimhappa, 2022; Poloju et al., 2022). The KoboToolBox facilitates data collection for researchers by utilizing an online platform that collects, stores, and aggregates data (Poloju et al., 2022). This platform replaces the paper-based traditional way of collecting data by using smart gadgets linked to a private online server that is only accessed by the researchers through created passwords (Poloju et al., 2022). It is a widely used tool for monitoring and evaluating programs (Poloju et al., 2022). The questionnaire was developed on Microsoft Word and then imported/deployed onto the KoboToolBox. The questionnaire had four sections as informed by the outcome of a qualitative survey that was conducted before this research; the first probed on the socio-demographic characteristics, the second focussing on knowledge, the third probed on the barriers, and the fourth probed on the facilitators to the uptake of PrEP by MSM. The tool was developed in English and translated into Ndebele and Shona, the most spoken languages in the province. The tool was pretested and translated from the local languages to English to determine if the questions retained the original meaning regardless of the language used in data collection.

Geographic Information System

A site visit to the MSM centers providing PrEP services was done. Coordinates of the location of these health care facilities that offer PrEP services were captured using the Kobo Collect tool Global Positioning Systems (GPS). Also, the addresses of the respondents were captured using the Kobo Collect tool and mapped against the PrEP services offered. A hotspot map of PrEP facilities to show the spatial distribution of the preferred facilities using the number of respondents who reported accessing their PrEP from those facilities was created using QGIS. GPS data points were captured twice with two different devices to ensure the consistency and reliability of the data.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data collected using the Kobo Collect Tool were exported to Excel to generate graphs on barriers and facilitators of PrEP. Knowledge levels were assessed using ten questions with predetermined responses, some correct and some wrong. A correct response was scored 1, and an incorrect response was scored 0, with higher scores indicating that the respondent was knowledgeable. A Likert-type scale adopted from other authors guided the analysis with a person scoring between 0 and 5 correct answers deemed not knowledgeable and those scoring six and above deemed knowledgeable (Mudonhi et al., 2020; Nunu et al., 2018). Chi-square tests assessed the relationship between demographic characteristics and knowledge levels. A simple logistic regression odds ratio was used to assess differences in age, gender, and education on knowledge of PrEP at a 95% confidence interval. These statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 15, and statistically significant differences were considered when a p value < .05 was obtained. GPS points were uploaded to QGIS and overlaid with other shape files.

Ethics Consideration

An application for ethical approval was lodged with the institutional review board. This committee granted ethics clearance. An information and consent sheet was developed and shared with respondents who went through and had the opportunity to seek clarification on issues they did not understand relating to the study. After this, they provided written consent before they participated in the research. It should be noted that participation was voluntary, and no one was coerced to participate.

Findings

Socio-Demographic Characteristics

The sample included 65 MSM, and the mean age of the respondents was 28.85 years. Most MSM identified as gay (34: 52.3%), while most were Black (53: 81.5%). Other socio-demographic information of the respondents is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Demographic characteristics	Sexual orientation
	Bisexual		Heterosexual		Gay		Total
	(f)	%	(f)	%	(f)	%	(f)	%
Age group
Under 20	2	7.7	1	20.0	4	11.8	7	10.8
20–24 years	9	34.6	0	0.0	9	26.5	18	27.7
25–29 years	4	15.4	1	20.0	8	23.5	13	20.0
30–34 years	6	23.1	1	20.0	6	17.6	13	20.0
35 and above	5	19.2	2	40.0	7	20.6	14	21.5
Ethnicity
Asian	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	2.9	1	1.5
Black	23	88.5	4	80.0	26	76.5	53	81.5
Mixed	1	3.8	1	20.0	5	14.7	7	10.8
White	2	7.7	0	0.0	2	5.9	4	6.2
Marital status
Cohabiting with a male partner	5	19.2	0	0.0	15	44.1	20	30.8
Married with a woman	8	30.8	3	60.0	0	0.0	11	16.9
Single	13	50.0	2	40.0	19	55.9	34	52.3
Highest level of education
High school	6	23.1	1	20.0	11	32.4	18	27.7
Never went to school	1	3.8	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	1.5
Primary school	1	3.8	0	0.0	2	5.9	3	4.6
Tertiary	17	65.4	3	60.0	20	58.8	40	61.5
Vocational training	1	3.8	1	20.0	1	2.9	3	4.6
Religion
African traditional religion	3	11.5	2	40.0	3	8.8	8	12.3
Christianity	18	69.2	2	40.0	24	70.6	44	67.7
Islamic	2	7.7	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	3.1
Non-believer	3	11.5	1	20.0	7	20.6	11	16.9
HIV status
Negative	23	88.5	4	80.0	32	94.1	59	90.8
Not aware	2	7.7	1	20.0	0	0.0	3	4.6
Positive	1	3.8	0	0.0	2	5.9	3	4.6
PrEP use status
Currently on PrEP	25	96.2	5	100.0	29	85.3	59	90.8
Never used PrEP before	0	0.0	0	0.0	1	2.9	1	1.5
Stopped using PrEP	1	3.8	0	0.0	4	11.8	5	7.7
Most preferred PrEP
Daily oral PrEP	15	57.7	3	60.0	22	64.7	40	61.5
Event driven PrEP (2+1+1)	11	42.3	2	40.0	12	35.3	25	38.5

Note. (f) represents frequency. PrEP = pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Spatial Distribution of MSM and MSM Facilities

Main facilities noted to offer PrEP services include the SRC, Population Solutions for Health, United Bulawayo Hospital and Mpilo Hospital. The spatial distribution of MSM locations and MSM facilities is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Spatial Distribution of MSM Against PrEP Facilities in Bulawayo

Hotspot Map of Where MSM Access PrEP and Location

MSM was highly concentrated in wards 8, 7, 12, 11, 18, and 15. MSM’s preferred PrEP facility was SRC (36: 55%) and Population Solutions for Health (19: 29%). Public hospitals (10: 16%) were this population’s least preferred facilities to access PrEP. The hotspot map of MSM distribution and where MSM access their PrEP is presented in Figure 3. SRC and Population Solutions for Health were the most preferred because they offer differentiated services and a friendly environment to MSM due to their centrality in terms of location compared to public hospitals.

Figure 3.

Hotspot Maps of MSM Locations and Where MSM Access PrEP

Knowledge Levels of MSM on PrEP

A total of (59) 90.8% of MSM were knowledgeable, scoring at least 6 out of 10 on PrEP, HIV, and AIDS. The highest level of education was the only socio-demographic characteristic significantly associated with the level of knowledge, as indicated by the Chi-square p value (<.001). Half of the population that was not knowledgeable had primary as their highest level of education. Primary education refers to a level of the education system in Zimbabwe that is foundational (roughly offered to 6- to 12-year-olds) and prepares them for high school. Other socio-demographic characteristics reported no significant association with the level of knowledge, as indicated by the Chi-square p value greater than .05. Age was not significantly associated with knowledge; however, some age groups reported higher chances of being knowledgeable than others. For instance, the age group 25–29 and 30–34 were 4.8 times more likely to be knowledgeable than those younger than 20 and aged 35 and above. The logistic regression odds ratio indicated that Black MSM was more likely to be knowledgeable than other ethnic races, and these findings are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Relationship Between Knowledge Levels and Socio-Demographic Characteristics

Socio-demographic characteristics	Level of knowledge				χ² p Value	LG, OR	95% CI	LG, p value
	Knowledgeable		Not knowledgeable
	(f)	%	(f)	%
Age group
Under 20	5	8.5	2	33.3	.320	^a
20–24	16	27.1	2	33.3		3.2	[0.354, 28.945]	.301
25–29	12	20.3	1	16.7		4.8	[0.350, 65.758]	.240
30–34	12	20.3	1	16.7		4.8	[0.350, 65.758]	.240
35 and above	14	23.7	0	0.0		1
Ethnicity
Asian	1	1.7	0	0.0	.641	^a
Black	49	83.1	4	66.7		4.1	[0.341, 48.862]	.267
Mixed	6	10.2	1	16.7		2	[0.090, 44.350]	.661
White	3	5.1	1	16.7		1
Sexual orientation
Bisexual	22	37.3	4	66.7	.343	^a
Heterosexual	5	8.5	0	0.0		1
Homosexual	32	54.2	2	33.3		2.9	[0.490, 17.286]	.240
Marital status
Cohabiting with a male partner	18	30.5	2	33.3	.498	^a
Married with a woman	11	18.6	0	0.0		1
Single	30	50.8	4	66.7		0.8	[0.138, 5.017]	.842
Highest level of education
High school	17	28.8	1	16.7	<.001	^a
Never went to school	1	1.7	0	0.0		1
Primary school	0	0.0	3	50.0		1
Tertiary	38	64.4	2	33.3		1.1	[0.095, 13.182]	.930
Vocational training	3	5.1	0	0.0		1
Religion
African Traditional Religion	8	13.6	0	0.0	.368	1
Christianity	38	64.4	6	100.0		1
Islamic	2	3.4	0	0.0		1
Non believer	11	18.6	0	0.0		1
HIV status
Negative	54	91.5	5	83.3	.297	^a
Not aware	2	3.4	1	16.7		0.2	[0.014, 2.418]	.198
Positive	3	5.1	0	0.0		1
PrEP use status
Currently on PrEP	53	89.8	6	100.0	.715	^a
Never used PrEP before	1	1.7	0	0.0		1
Stopped using PrEP	5	8.5	0	0.0		1
Most preferred PrEP
Daily oral PrEP	37	62.7	3	50.0	.542	^a
Event-driven PrEP (2+1+1)	22	37.3	3	50.0	.542	0.6	[0.110, 3.206]	.545

Note. (f) = frequency; LG = logistic regression; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; PrEP = pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Reference group.

Barriers to PrEP Use

About 46 (70%) of the respondents concurred that of the 20 predetermined barriers in the questionnaire, 15 influenced access to PrEP and its use. These findings are presented in Figure 4. The most disagreed barriers to PrEP use among this population were negative attitudes from health care workers and PrEP being not reliable, affordable, and effective. These barriers were least agreed upon because 84% of the respondents reported accessing their PrEP from MSM-friendly facilities free of charge.

Figure 4.

Barriers Influencing PrEP Use Among MSM (n = 65)

Relationship Between Barriers and Accessibility of PrEP

Of all the 20 barriers cross-tabulated with this outcome variable (have you accessed PrEP), none of the barriers were significantly associated with this outcome variable, as indicated by the Chi-square p value (<.05). These findings are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Relationship Between Barriers and Access to PrEP

Barriers to PrEP use	Outcome = Have you accessed PrEP
	No		Yes		χ² p Value
	(f)	N %	(f)	N %	χ² p Value
Lack of information on PrEP
Disagree	0	0.0	4	6.8	.510
Agree	6	100.0	55	93.2	.510
Hearing negative things on PrEP
Disagree	1	16.7	10	16.9	.986
Agree	5	83.3	49	83.1	.986
Negative attitudes from PrEP providers
Disagree	1	16.7	34	57.6	.055
Agree	5	83.3	25	42.4	.055
Not accessible or inadequate coverage of PrEP
Disagree	1	16.7	8	13.6	.834
Agree	5	83.3	51	86.4	.834
PrEP is not affordable
Disagree	5	83.3	44	74.6	.635
Agree	1	16.7	15	25.4	.635
PrEP is not reliable and effective
Disagree	5	83.3	38	64.4	.351
Agree	1	16.7	21	35.6	.351
Long distance to PrEP facilities
Disagree	3	50.0	15	25.4	.200
Agree	3	50.0	44	74.6	.200
Stigma that PrEP users are HIV positive
Disagree	3	50.0	13	22.0	.130
Agree	3	50.0	46	78.0	.130
Stigma that PrEP users are HIV positive
Disagree	2	33.	14	23.7	.603
Agree	4	66.7	45	76.3	.603
Stigma about PrEP being ARVs
Disagree	2	33.3	13	22.0	.531
Agree	4	66.7	46	78.0	.531
Stigma about being gay or bisexual
Disagree	1	16.7	10	16.9	.986
Agree	5	83.3	49	83.1	.986
Concern about taking pills everyday
Disagree	0	0.0	14	23.7	.178
Agree	6	100.0	45	76.3	.178
Same packaging of PrEP as Antiretroviral drugs (ARVs)
Disagree	0	0.0	15	25.4	.159
Agree	6	100.0	44	74.6	.159
Pill size taste and odor
Disagree	0	0.0	10	16.9	.273
Agree	6	100.0	49	83.1	.273
Fear of side effects
Disagree	1	16.7	8	13.6	.834
Agree	5	83.3	51	86.4	.834
Feeling that you are not at risk
Disagree	0	0.0	15	25.4	.159
Agree	6	100.0	44	74.6	.159
PrEP tempts into risk sexual behavior
Disagree	1	16.7	30	50.8	.110
Agree	5	83.3	29	49.2	.110
Being in a steady relationship with an honesty partner
Disagree	1	16.7	13	22.0	.761
Agree	5	83.3	46	78.0	.761
Lack of protection from other syphilis herpes
Disagree	2	33.3	9	15.3	.260
Agree	4	66.7	50	84.7	.260
Preference of other methods, e.g., condoms
Disagree	0	0.0	10	16.9	.273
Agree	6	100.0	49	83.1	.273

Note. PrEP = pre-exposure prophylaxis.

PrEP education, friendly PrEP facilities, and making PrEP available at all times were agreed upon by all the respondents in the study as effective facilitators to improve PrEP use among MSM. Improving the packaging of PrEP pills was the least agreed to as a facilitator, and the results are presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Facilitators to Improve Use Among MSM

Discussions

It was noted that only four PrEP providers were used by the respondents to access PrEP, with SRC (55%) being the most preferred facility, followed by Population Solutions for Health (29%). These two facilities are MSM-friendly, and these organizations are notable champions in providing SRHS and upholding human rights to LGBQIT+. The findings concur with Graham et al. (2022), Pichon et al. (2022), and Yu et al. (2021), who reported that MSM preferred accessing their pills from MSM-friendly facilities as compared to other PrEP providers (Graham et al., 2022; Pichon et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2021). The study reported that these MSM facilities are centrally located in the Central Business District (CBD), which is convenient for MSM to access compared to the public hospitals located outside CBD. The study corresponds with another one in Kenya by Graham et al. (2022), which reported that long distances to a PrEP facility could hinder PrEP uptake (Graham et al., 2022). Pelletier et al. (2019) also noted that distance to the distribution center is a player in the acceptability of PrEP among MSM.

The study reported that 90.8% of MSM were highly knowledgeable about PrEP, HIV, and AIDS-related services. This could be explained by the fact that most participants access PrEP in MSM-friendly facilities that take time to educate and accommodate their unique needs. This is consistent with the results of a study done by Voglino et al. (2021) in Italy, which recorded a high level of knowledge of 100%, and Holloway et al. (2017) recorded 82.3% of respondents being knowledgeable in the United States of America (Voglino et al., 2021). However, other studies conducted in low-income or middle-income countries such as Swaziland, Ghana, and Cote d’Ivoire reported that MSM was not knowledgeable (Ogunbajo et al., 2020; Pelletier et al., 2019; Sithole, 2017).

The results also reported that knowledge was associated with the highest level of education (p < .001) among a sample of MSM who participated in the study. Usually, the higher the level of education, the higher the literacy level, and the hungrier one becomes in the quest for knowledge. The study concurs with Ahouada et al. (2020) and Voglino et al. (2021), who also found an association between knowledge of PrEP and the highest level of education (Ahouada et al., 2020; Voglino et al., 2021). The logistic regression odds ratio reported no significant differences between age groups on the level of knowledge of PrEP. The findings contradict the study in Latin America by Assaf et al. (2021), which reported an association between age and PrEP awareness (Assaf et al., 2021). Logistic regression odds ratio reported that Black MSM was knowledgeable as compared to other ethnic groups; these findings contradict the study findings of Kahle et al. (2018), which reported that knowledge levels were higher among White MSM than among other minority races (Kahle et al., 2018). This could have been the case because Blacks in Zimbabwe accounted for a large and dominant proportion. Low awareness of PrEP has been reported in other studies to be associated with racial/ethnic minorities (Eaton et al., 2015); this is consistent with the findings of this study that minority groups (Asian, mixed, and White) had the lowest odds of being knowledgeable about PrEP as compared to Blacks.

Similar to previous research investigating barriers that influence PrEP use among MSM. The most commonly identified barriers include stigma on PrEP users being promiscuous and HIV positive, their sexuality, inadequate information on PrEP, negative attitudes from PrEP providers, daily pill taking, fear of side effects, and inadequate coverage of PrEP. The findings correspond with many studies identifying the aforementioned barriers (Adeagbo et al., 2021; Dean et al., 2023; Klein & Washington, 2020; Pichon et al., 2022; Pingel et al., 2017). The findings, however, identified the unaffordability of PrEP as not a significant barrier, as noted by the respondents; this was attributed to the fact that most respondents reported accessing their PrEP for free in either MSM-friendly facilities or public hospitals. These results contradict some studies which mentioned the unaffordability of PrEP as a notable barrier (Dean et al., 2023; Emmanuel et al., 2020; Graham et al., 2022; Gredig et al., 2016; Han et al., 2019; Harawa et al., 2016; Hojilla et al., 2018; Holloway et al., 2017; Patrick et al., 2019; Pérez-Figueroa et al., 2015; Pérez-Jiménez et al., 2009; Voglino et al., 2021). Cross-tabulation was done to explore whether the barriers had any influence using the outcome variable of whether MSM has accessed PrEP. None of the barriers reported any significant association between the two variables, as indicated by the Chi-square p value. The findings contradict most of the studies that established an association between barriers and accessibility of PrEP. More studies need to be carried out to understand the situation.

The study’s findings align with many literature sources indicating that MSM’s decision to forgo PrEP is significantly influenced by the barriers they face at different levels. To improve the uptake of PrEP among this population, different facilitators identified include correct messaging on PrEP, PrEP education, the existence of friendly PrEP facilities, making PrEP available at all times, partner support on PrEP use, increasing the number of PrEP facilities, support groups, and availability of long-lasting injectable PrEP. These usually ensure consistency in services received, thus creating demand for the services and confidence to access these services. The results concur with the findings by other scholars who also identified different facilitators to improve PrEP, such as PrEP education and dissemination of information, the existence of MSM-friendly facilities, increasing health care centers that provide PrEP services, preference of long-lasting injectable PrEP, and support groups or PrEP clubs (Chakrapani et al., 2015; Graham et al., 2022; Harawa et al., 2016; Pichon et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2022).

Limitations

The study focused on respondents in the urban setup of Bulawayo. They had ties or relations with the SRC and came out about their sexuality. This could have led to those not disclosed being excluded from the study. This study was not funded; therefore, this resulted in the recruitment of a small sample size guided by the few resources the researchers had. It would have been ideal to conduct a study with a larger sample size to gather the varied views of more respondents. The strategy that was used to recruit respondents could have led to those MSM who were not in the databases of organizations that had sexual health programs targeting MSM to have been left out and their views missed. These findings, therefore, could not be generalized to the broader population as far as MSM is concerned.

Conclusions

PrEP uptake among MSM in Bulawayo has generally been significantly high. This can be attributed to various factors, including increased awareness campaigns, the existence of MSM facilities, and the effectiveness of PrEP in preventing HIV transmission. Overall, PrEP has been well-received among many MSM communities in Bulawayo. Acceptability of PrEP among MSM has also been generally positive. It was revealed that MSM had favorable attitudes and knowledge toward it. Providing PrEP to MSM for free by health care facilities has contributed to its acceptability among many MSM diversities in Bulawayo. It is important to note that barriers and challenges to PrEP uptake and acceptability still exist among some MSM populations. These can include concerns about side effects, negative attitudes by health care providers, stigma, and access to health care services.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

P.L.M. is a BSc Environmental Science and Health degree holder at the National University of Science and Technology in Zimbabwe. The author is also a Master’s student in the same institution. This article was part of the research project required for partial fulfillment of the Master’s Degree in Environmental Health. W.N.N. is a PhD in Public Health degree holder and an Executive Dean in the Faculty of Environmental Science. The author is the supervisor to the student and provided guidance and mentorship in the conceptualization and writing of this manuscript.

Author Contributions

P.L.M. conceptualized the research idea and drafted the manuscript. W.N.N. coordinated the manuscript writing process, guided the manuscript writing process, and revised the draft manuscript. Both authors read and approved the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

An application for ethical approval was lodged with the Institutional Review Board at the National University of Science and Technology in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. This committee granted ethics clearance (Ethics Clearance Number: NUST/IRB/2023/52).

ORCID iDs

Perez Livias Moyo

Wilfred Njabulo Nunu

References

Adeagbo

Harrison

Qiao

(2021). Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake among Black men who have sex with men (BMSM) in the Southern U.S. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(18), 9715. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189715

Ahouada

Diabaté

Mondor

Hessou

Guédou

F. A.

Béhanzin

. . .Alary

(2020). Acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: Facilitators, barriers and impact on sexual risk behaviors among men who have sex with men in Benin. BMC Public Health, 20(1), Article 1267. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09363-4

Assaf

R. D.

Konda

K. A.

Torres

T. S.

Vega-Ramirez

E. H.

Elorreaga

O. A.

Diaz-Sosa

. . .Veloso

V. G.

(2021). Are men who have sex with men at higher risk for HIV in Latin America more aware of PrEP? PLOS ONE, 16(8), Article e0255557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255557

Cao

Sun

Peng

Hao

. . .Li

(2020). Low willingness to pay for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men (MSM) in China. BMC Public Health, 20, Article 337. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08488-w

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022a). HIV basics. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/index.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022b). PrEP effectiveness. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep/prep-effectiveness.html

Chakrapani

Newman

P. A.

Shunmugam

Mengle

Varghese

Nelson

Bharat

(2015). Acceptability of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and implementation challenges among men who have sex with men in India: A qualitative investigation. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 29(10), 569–577. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2015.0143

Cusini

Vernazza

P. L.

Yerly

Decosterd

L. A.

Ledergerber

Fux

C. A.

. . .Gaudenz

(2013). Higher CNS penetration-effectiveness of long-term combination antiretroviral therapy is associated with better HIV-1 viral suppression in cerebrospinal fluid. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 62(1), 28–35.

Dean

L. T.

Predmore

Skinner

Napoleon

Chan

P. A.

Raifman

(2023). Optimizing uptake of long-acting injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention for men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior, 27, 2606–2616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-023-03986-5

10.

Eaton

L. A.

Driffin

D. D.

Bauermeister

Smith

Conway-Washington

(2015). Minimal awareness and stalled uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among at risk, HIV-negative, Black men who have sex with men. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 29(8), 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2014.0303

11.

Emmanuel

Folayan

Undelikwe

Ochonye

Jayeoba

Yusuf

. . .Kalaiwo

(2020). Community perspectives on barriers and challenges to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis access by men who have sex with men and female sex workers access in Nigeria. BMC Public Health, 20(1), Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-8195-x

12.

Food and Drug Administration. (2019). FDA approves drug for HIV prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2012/fda-approvesdrugstatement.html

13.

Graham

S. M.

Okall

D. O.

Mehta

S. D.

Obondi

Ng’ety

Ochieng

. . .Otieno

F. O.

(2022). Challenges with PrEP uptake and adherence among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in Kisumu, Kenya. AIDS and Behavior, 27, 1234–1247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-022-03860-w

14.

Gredig

Uggowitzer

Hassler

Weber

Nideröst

(2016). Acceptability and willingness to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among HIV-negative men who have sex with men in Switzerland. AIDS Care, 28(Suppl. 1), 44–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2016.1146212

15.

Gupta

Granich

(2017). National HIV care continua for key populations: 2010 to 2016. Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, 16(2), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325957416686195

16.

Han

Bouey

J. Z. H.

Wang

Chen

. . .Zhang

(2019). PrEP uptake preferences among men who have sex with men in China: Results from a National Internet Survey. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 22(2), Article e25242. https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25242

17.

Harawa

Bempong

Fields

Leibowitz

Lee

Meyer

. . .Shoptaw

(2016). Engaging Black men who have sex with men (BMSM) in Los Angeles in HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). California HIV/AIDS Policy Centers. http://chipts.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/White-Paper-Black-MSM-and-PrEP.pdf

18.

HIV and STI Biobehavioral Survey. (2020). HIV and STI Biobehavioral Survey among men who have sex with men, transgender women, and genderqueer individuals in Zimbabwe–Final report. https://icap.columbia.edu/cpt_projects/hiv-and-sti-biobehavioral-survey-among-men-who-have-sex-with-men-transgender-women-and-genderqueer-individuals-in-zimbabwe/

19.

Hojilla

J. C.

Vlahov

Crouch

P.-C.

Dawson-Rose

Freeborn

Carrico

(2018). HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake and retention among men who have sex with men in a community-based sexual health clinic. AIDS and Behavior, 22(4), 1096–1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-017-2009-x

20.

Holloway

I. W.

Tan

Gildner

J. L.

Beougher

S. C.

Pulsipher

Montoya

J. A.

. . .Leibowitz

(2017). Facilitators and barriers to pre-exposure prophylaxis willingness among young men who have sex with men who use geosocial networking applications in California. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 31(12), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2017.0082

21.

Hood

J. E.

Buskin

S. E.

Dombrowski

J. C.

Kern

D. A.

Barash

E. A.

Katz

D. A.

Golden

M. R.

(2016). Dramatic increase in pre-exposure prophylaxis use among MSM in Washington state. AIDS, 30(3), 515–519. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0000000000000937

22.

Ipsos. (2021). LGBT+ Pride 2021 Global Survey points to a generation gap around gender identity and sexual attraction. https://www.ipsos.com/en/lgbt-pride-2021-global-survey-points-generation-gap-around-gender-identity-and-sexual-attraction

23.

Kahle

E. M.

Sullivan

Stephenson

(2018). Functional knowledge of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among participants in a web-based survey of sexually active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 4(1), Article e13. https://doi.org/10.2196/publichealth.8089

24.

Khozah

M. Y.

Nunu

W. N.

(2023). Sexual and gender minorities inclusion and uptake of sexual and reproductive health services: A scoping review of literature. American Journal of Men’s Health, 17(4), 15579883231184078.

25.

Klein

Washington

T. A.

(2020). Older versus younger men who have sex with men: Awareness of and potential barriers to the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) medication to prevent the transmission of HIV. Journal of AIDS and HIV Treatment, 2(2), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.33696/AIDS.2.006

26.

Koenig

L. J.

Lyles

Smith

D. K.

(2013). Adherence to antiretroviral medications for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(1), S91–S98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.047

27.

Lakshminarasimhappa

(2022). Web-based and smart mobile app for data collection: Kobo Toolbox/Kobo collect. Journal of Indian Library Association, 57(2), 72–79.

28.

Liu

Ding

Ning

Gao

Liu

Wong

F. Y.

. . .He

(2017). Factors influencing uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis: Some qualitative insights from an intervention study of men who have sex with men in China. Sexual Health, 15(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1071/SH17075

29.

McCormack

Dunn

D. T.

Desai

Dolling

D. I.

Gafos

Gilson

. . .Schembri

(2016). Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection (PROUD): Effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomised trial. The Lancet, 387(10013), 53–60.

30.

Moyo

Macherera

Mavhandu-Mudzusi

A. H.

(2021). The lived experiences of men who have sex with men when accessing HIV care services in Zimbabwe. Health SA Gesondheid, 26, 1462. https://doi.org/10.4102/hsag.v26i0.1462

31.

Mudonhi

Nunu

W. N.

Ndlovu

Khumalo

Dube

(2020). Adolescents and parents’ perceptions of condom distribution in selected secondary schools in the high density suburbs of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Sexuality & Culture, 24(3), 485–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09642-2

32.

Munyimani

Nunu

W. N.

(2022). Perceptions and experiences of males who have sex with men regarding sexual and reproductive health services in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. The Open Public Health Journal, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.2174/18749445-v15-e2208150

33.

Nunu

W. N.

Kativhu

Moyo

(2018). An evaluation of the effectiveness of the Behaviour Based Safety Initiative card system at a cement manufacturing company in Zimbabwe. Safety and Health at Work, 9(3), 308–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2017.09.002

34.

Ogunbajo

Leblanc

N. M.

Kushwaha

Boakye

Hanson

Smith

M. D. R.

Nelson

L. E.

(2020). Knowledge and acceptability of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men (MSM) in Ghana. AIDS Care, 32(3), 330–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2019.1675858

35.

Patrick

Jain

Harvey-Vera

Semple

S. J.

Rangel

Patterson

T. L.

Pines

H. A.

(2019). Perceived barriers to pre-exposure prophylaxis use among HIV-negative men who have sex with men in Tijuana, Mexico: A latent class analysis. PLOS ONE, 14(8), Article e0221558. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221558

36.

Pelletier

S. J.

Gagnon

M.-P.

Diabaté

Kra

Biékoua

Y. J.

Osso

G. D.

. . .Alary

(2019). Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in men who have sex with men in Bouaké, Côte d’Ivoire: A qualitative evaluation of acceptability. The Open AIDS Journal, 13(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874613601913010049

37.

Pérez-Figueroa

R. E.

Kapadia

Barton

S. C.

Eddy

J. A.

Halkitis

P. N.

(2015). Acceptability of PrEP uptake among racially/ethnically diverse young men who have sex with men: The P18 study. AIDS Education and Prevention, 27(2), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1521/aeap.2015.27.2.112

38.

Pérez-Jiménez

Seal

D. W.

Serrano-García

(2009). Barriers and facilitators of HIV prevention with heterosexual Latino couples: Beliefs of four stakeholder groups. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013872

39.

Pichon

L. C.

Teti

McGoy

Murry

V. M.

Juarez

P. D.

(2022). Engaging Black men who have sex with men (MSM) in the South in identifying strategies to increase PrEP uptake. BMC Health Services Research, 22(1), Article 1491. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-08914-2

40.

Pingel

E. S.

Rolle

C.-P.

Kelley

Rosenberg

Stephenson

Sullivan

Siegler

(2017). O02.4 It’s just not for me: Exploring low prep uptake among young Black men who have sex with men in the southern United States. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 93(Suppl. 2), A4. https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2017-053264.9

41.

Poloju

K. K.

Naidu

V. R.

Rollakanti

C. R.

Manchiryal

R. K.

Joe

(2022). New method of data collection using the kobo toolbox. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 1527–1535.

42.

Saul

Bachman

Allen

Toiv

N. F.

Cooney

Beamon

T. A.

(2018). The DREAMS core package of interventions: A comprehensive approach to preventing HIV among adolescent girls and young women. PLOS ONE, 13(12), Article e0208167. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208167

43.

Sithole

(2017). HIV prevention needs for men who have sex with men in Swaziland. African Journal of AIDS Research, 16(4), 315–320. https://doi.org/10.2989/16085906.2017.1379420

44.

UNAIDS. (2016a). Global AIDS Update 2016. https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2016/Global-AIDS-update-2016

45.

UNAIDS. (2016b). Prevention gap report. https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/2016-prevention-gap-report_en.pdf

46.

UNAIDS. (2019). New HIV infections increasingly among key populations. https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/presscentre/featurestories/2020/september/20200928_new-hiv-infections-increasingly-among-key-populations

47.

Voglino

Gualano

M. R.

Rousset

Forghieri

Fraire

Bert

Siliquini

(2021). Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a sample of Italian men who have sex with men (MSM). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9), 4772. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094772

48.

World Health Organization. (2015a). Guideline on when to start antiretroviral therapy and on pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV.

49.

World Health Organization. (2015b). Who expands recommendation on oral preexposure prophylaxis of HIV infection (PREP). https://www.paho.org/en/node/69890.

50.

Cross

Lam

L. L. Y.

Zhang

Banik

Wang

(2021). Willingness, preferred ways and potential barriers to use pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among men who have sex with men in China. BMJ Open, 11(10), Article e053634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053634

51.

Zhou

Assanangkornchai

Shi

Jiang

Yang

Shi

(2022). Acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis and non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in Guilin, China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3579. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063579

52.

Zimstat. (2022). 2022 population & housing census–preliminary. Zimbabwe Data Portal. https://zimbabwe.opendataforafrica.org/anjlptc/2022-population-housing-census-preliminary

Oral Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Accessibility,Knowledge,Barriers,and Facilitators Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in Bulawayo,Zimbabwe

Abstract

Keywords

Background

Methodology

Study Area

Study Design

Target Population

Sampling

Data Collection Procedure and Tools

Structured Questionnaire Guide

Geographic Information System

Data Analysis

Ethics Consideration

Findings

Socio-Demographic Characteristics

Spatial Distribution of MSM and MSM Facilities

Hotspot Map of Where MSM Access PrEP and Location

Knowledge Levels of MSM on PrEP

Barriers to PrEP Use

Relationship Between Barriers and Accessibility of PrEP

Discussions

Limitations

Conclusions

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Author Contributions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Approval

ORCID iDs

References