INTRODUCTION:Cisgender women account for almost 20% of new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in the United States. This study aims to assess contraception use at last intercourse in cisgender women at high risk for HIV acquisition.METHODS:We abstracted demographics, socioeconomic status, HIV risk, and reproductive health information from the 2017 iteration of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We used survey-weighted logistic regression adjusted for several demographic factors to compare trends of contraception use between those at low and high risk for HIV acquisition, which was defined as those who have engaged in transactional sex practices, used injection drugs, or been treated for a sexually transmitted infection in the past year.RESULTS:Women at high risk for HIV acquisition had no significant difference in contraception use at last intercourse compared to those at low risk (P=.262, odds ratio [OR] 1.11 [0.93–1.32]). Among those who did not use contraception at last intercourse, women at risk for HIV acquisition were more likely to state indifference toward getting pregnant (P=.029, OR 1.79 [1.06–3.01]) and lapse in method use (P=.001, OR 4.55 [1.80–11.5]) as reasons for not using contraception. Additionally, those at high risk for HIV were more likely to have had an intrauterine device (IUD) (unknown type) at last intercourse (P<.001, OR 1.70 [1.28–2.24]) and less likely to have used hormonal shots (P=.015, OR 0.47 [0.26–0.86]).CONCLUSION:Women at risk for HIV are more likely to have had an IUD at last intercourse, which could indicate a role for the integration of HIV preexposure prophylaxis and family planning. Contraception method preference in this population and attitudes toward pregnancy should be further investigated.

e24048 Background: While treatment-related sexual health sequelae are documented using validated patient-reported outcome measures, the anatomic changes associated with cancer treatment are not well described, which may lead to an underestimation of the severity of these symptoms. To fill this knowledge gap and improve the management of these anatomic disruptions, we sought to objectively report the genitourinary findings of women presenting to a sexual health after cancer program over one year. Methods: At their first visit, patients undergo a thorough history and physical with a focus on the genitourinary exam. Patient demographics, primary symptoms, and treatment history were retrospectively collected and correlated to vaginal assessment scale (VAS) scores of female cancer patients presenting to the MUSIC (Menopause, Urogenital, Sexual Health and Intimacy Clinic) Program at an NCI-designated cancer center. Results: Between 2020-2021, 104 female cis-gender women with a median age of 46 (range 19-75) at diagnosis were seen. 56% identified as Hispanic/Latinx. Mean age was 47 (19-75), and most were treated for breast (80%) or gynecologic (10%) cancer. Primary complaints included vaginal dryness (53%), painful sex (45%), low desire (36%), hot flashes (22%), problems with orgasm (5%), urinary symptoms (10%), chronic pelvic pain (4%), or a need for complex contraceptive counseling (1%). Of those where a VAS was performed (n = 89), patients were found to have mild or moderate/severe loss of rugae (78%), loss of elasticity (84%), loss of vascularity (86%), and/or dryness (88%). Alarmingly, almost half were found to have some element of vaginal stenosis on exam, either vaginal scarring/adhesions (6%), foreshortened vagina (13%), or a narrowed introitus (47%) (Table). Conclusions: In an initial consult of women seeking care for sexual health after cancer treatment, the most common concerns were vaginal dryness, painful sex, and low desire. Despite only approximately half reporting either dryness or painful sex, most were found to have genitourinary disruptions in anatomy at presentation, including vaginal stenosis. The presence of vaginal stenosis in sexual health survivors who did not undergo pelvic radiation deserves future study as these findings often present as a complete inability to have penetrative intercourse.[Table: see text]

e24050 Background: Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) in cancer survivors is underreported and therefore undertreated. This study aims to describe the population of female cancer survivors seeking treatment for sexual dysfunction through a novel sexual health after cancer program. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis to characterize patients presenting to the MUSIC (Menopause, Urogenital, Sexual Health and Intimacy Clinic) Program at a NCI-designated cancer center in South Florida. Patients received a baseline Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and underwent a physical, including abdominopelvic, exam. The FSFI is a 19-item survey previously validated for use in female cancer survivors. Severity of dysfunction (by presenting symptom, physical exam, and FSFI) was correlated to demographic and cancer characteristics. Sexual dysfunction was defined as ≤26.55. Results: Between 2020-2021, 104 female cis-gender women with a median age of 46 (range 19-75) at diagnosis were seen. 56% identified as Hispanic/Latinx. Most were treated for breast (80%) or gynecologic (10%) cancer. Common presenting symptoms included vaginal dryness (55%), painful sex (45%), low desire (36%) and hot flashes (22%). Patients who disclosed details about pain (n = 62) reported penetration was possible but uncomfortable (16%), possible but painful (66%) or impossible due to pain (18%). Those who disclosed changes with orgasm (n = 43) reported it was more difficult (26%), or impossible (23%). Of those completing the FSFI (n = 66), median Desire Domain score was 1.2 (IQR 1.2-2.4), and median Total Score was 8.1 (IQR 2.9-16.4), with 97% of patients meeting criteria for FSD (Table). Conclusions: The present study highlights a continued unmet need to address severe sexual health concerns in the growing female cancer survivor population. Future work will describe treatment strategies employed and their effectiveness at symptom resolution and quality-of-life improvement.[Table: see text]

Objective:We conducted a scoping review to assess barriers to and facilitators of integrating HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and family planning (FP) at the patient, provider, and implementation levels, and to identify gaps in knowledge.Methods:We conducted a search of five bibliographic databases from database inception to March 2022: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full texts to determine eligibility based on a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. We categorized studies by their relevance to patient, provider, and implementation barriers, and extracted data based on prespecified elements.Results:Our initial search strategy yielded 1151 results, and 34 publications were included. Barriers to PrEP implementation in family planning settings included low PrEP knowledge among patients, hesitance to take PrEP due to perceived stigma, decreased willingness of providers unfamiliar with PrEP to prescribe PrEP, and limited financial and staffing resources that make prescribing and monitoring PrEP difficult. Facilitators included robust training for providers, stigma reduction efforts, leadership engagement, and increased resources specifically in settings with processes in place that ease the process of prescribing and monitoring PrEP.Conclusions:Advances in implementation strategy development, stigma reduction, and drug development will be essential to reinforcing PrEP care in family planning settings and thereby reducing the incidence of HIV in women through highly effective pharmacologic HIV prevention methods.