Purpose of Review Aligning HIV treatment services with patient preferences can promote long-term engagement. A rising number of studies solicit such preferences using discrete choice experiments, but have not been systematically reviewed to seek generalizable insights. Using a systematic search, we identified eleven choice experiments evaluating preferences for HIV treatment services published between 2004 and 2020. Recent Findings Across settings, the strongest preference was for nice, patient-centered providers, for which participants were willing to trade considerable amounts of time, money, and travel distance. In low- and middle-income countries, participants also preferred collecting antiretroviral therapy (ART) less frequently than 1 monthly, but showed no strong preference for 3-compared with 6-month refill frequency. Facility waiting times and travel distances were also important but were frequently outranked by stronger preferences. Health facility–based services were preferred to community- or home-based services, but this preference varied by setting. In high-income countries, the availability of unscheduled appointments was highly valued. Stigma was rarely explored and costs were a ubiquitous driver of preferences. Summary While present improvement efforts have focused on designs to enhance access (reduced waiting time, travel distance, and ART refill frequency), few initiatives focus on the patient-provider interaction, which represents a promising critical area for inquiry and investment. If HIV programs hope to truly deliver patient-centered care, they will need to incorporate patient preferences into service delivery strategies. Discrete choice experiments can not only inform such strategies but also contribute to prioritization efforts for policy-making decisions.

Government interventions, such as mandating the use of masks and social distancing, play crucial roles in controlling the spread of pandemic infection. Adherence depends on public perceptions about pandemic risk. The goal was to explore the roles of education, income, and country on misperceptions, risk perceptions and personal risk perceptions about COVID-19. Data were extracted from 3 preregistered surveys. Binary logistic regressions were conducted to investigate the roles country, education, and income had on outcome variables. Across the USA, Canada, and UK, individuals in the highest income quartile were significantly less likely to hold misperceptions (OR=0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83) and to perceive personal risk (OR=0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.75) regarding COVID-19 compared with individuals in the lowest income quartile. When comparing these income quartiles in the USA, the difference in perceived risk was heightened (OR=0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.57). Citizens of the UK were more likely to have risk perceptions compared with citizens of the USA (OR=1.50, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.88). Citizens of Canada were less likely to perceive personal risk compared with US citizens (OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.69). Proper risk perception and understanding of COVID-19 are necessary for adherence to public health initiatives. The lowest income quartile was shown to have more misperceptions and personal risk perceptions across all 3 countries, highlighting the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 in this group. Our findings support the importance of education and income in affecting health perceptions and outcomes. Further research is needed to explore interventions to minimize misperceptions, accurately shape risk perception, and effectively communicate science.

Objective: Homelessness is the greatest risk factor for HIV viremia in San Francisco. Innovative care models for people with HIV (PWH) with homelessness or unstable housing (HUH) are needed to address this inequity. We developed a novel low-barrier clinic-based program for PWH-HUH in an urban safety-net clinic ('POP-UP') and report outcomes on care engagement and viral suppression.Design: A prospective cohort study.Setting: San Francisco General Hospital HIV Clinic (Ward 86).Participants: We enrolled PWH who are HUH, viraemic and for whom usual care is not working (at least one missed primary care appointment and at least two drop-in visits at Ward 86 in the last year).Intervention: POP-UP provides drop-in comprehensive primary care, housing assistance and case management, financial incentives and patient navigation with frequent contact. Main outcome measures:We describe uptake of eligible patients into POP-UP, and cumulative incidence of antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation, return to care and virologic suppression 6 months post-enrolment, estimated via Kaplan-Meier.Results: Out of 192 referred patients, 152 were eligible, and 75 enrolled. All 75 were off ART and viraemic; 100% had a substance use disorder; and 77% had a mental health diagnosis. Over three-quarters restarted ART within 7 days of enrolment, and 91% returned for follow-up within 90 days. The cumulative incidence of viral suppression at 6 months was 55% (95% confidence interval 43-68).

Background: Homelessness and unstable housing (HUH) negatively impact care outcomes for people living with HIV (PLWH). To inform the design of a clinic program for PLWH experiencing HUH, we quantified patient preferences and trade-offs across multiple HIV-service domains using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Methods: We sequentially sampled PLWH experiencing HUH presenting at an urban HIV clinic with ≥1 missed primary care visit and viremia in the last year to conduct a DCE. Participants chose between 2 hypothetical clinics varying across 5 service attributes: care team “get to know me as a person” versus not; receiving $10, $15, or $20 gift cards for clinic visits; drop-in versus scheduled visits; direct phone communication to care team versus front-desk staff; and staying 2 versus 20 blocks from the clinic. We estimated attribute relative utility (ie, preference) using mixed-effects logistic regression and calculated the monetary trade-off of preferred options. Results: Among 65 individuals interviewed, 61% were >40 years old, 45% White, 77% men, 25% heterosexual, 56% lived outdoors/emergency housing, and 44% in temporary housing. Strongest preferences were for patient-centered care team [β = 3.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.57 to 5.02] and drop-in clinic appointments (β = 1.33; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.80), with a willingness to trade $32.79 (95% CI: 14.75 to 50.81) and $11.45 (95% CI: 2.95 to 19.95) in gift cards/visit, respectively. Conclusions: In this DCE, PLWH experiencing HUH were willing to trade significant financial gain to have a personal relationship with and drop-in access to their care team rather than more resource-intensive services. These findings informed Ward 86's “POP-UP” program for PLWH-HUH and can inform “ending the HIV epidemic” efforts.