PrEP stigma among current and non-current PrEP users in Thailand: A comparison between hospital and key population-led health service settings

Abstract

BackgroundPre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has demonstrated effectiveness in high-risk populations. PrEP service in Thailand became free of charge under the Universal Health Coverage (UHC) in 2021. The National Health Security Office launched a pilot project in 2020 to ensure sustainable service delivery, and the national monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework was adopted to evaluate early phase implementation. We carried out a cross-sectional survey as part of the M&E process to investigate PrEP stigma among current and non-current PrEP users from both hospital and Key Population Led Health Services (KPLHS) settings in Thailand.MethodsBetween August and October 2020, an online cross-sectional survey was conducted. A link for a self-administered questionnaire was distributed to all active PrEP centers and PrEP clients were then recruited by PrEP providers. Descriptive and univariate analysis using Chi-square were applied in the analyses. Attitudes toward PrEP were ranked from the most negative to the most positive. The negative attitude can be interpreted as PrEP stigma.ResultsThis study included 513 PrEP clients (355 from hospitals and 158 from KPLHS). In both settings, respondents' attitudes toward PrEP were generally positive, but some potential stigma was observed. 31.8% of hospital PrEP clients and 9.5% of KPLHS clients agreed that PrEP users should keep their pills hidden from others. Almost half (44.5%) of hospital clients and 18.4% of KPLHS clients agreed that PrEP users are often viewed negatively by society. More than 20% of hospital clients and 12% of KPLHS agreed that PrEP users frequently experience difficulties when their partner/lover/family find out that he or she is on PrEP. Respondents from the hospitals had slightly higher PrEP stigma than those from KPLHS.ConclusionsAccording to our findings, at the policy level, the campaign to provide PrEP education to all groups of people should be continued in order to promote a positive view of PrEP and reduce PrEP-related stigma among the general population, which is critical for successful PrEP implementation.

The experience of healthcare workers to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

“…Our findings indicated that some characteristics of PrEP pills may act as barriers to uptake. The effectiveness of PrEP in preventing HIV infection has been well documented, but it has also been used for HIV treatment, causing confusion between HIV prevention and treatment, which may lead clients to refuse to take it for fear of the HIV-related social stigma ( 47 ). Therefore, a different packaging or container for PrEP could be considered, and with a label indicating that is used for HIV prevention, to address the potential stigma ( 19 ).…”

High PrEP uptake, adherence, persistence and effectiveness outcomes among young Thai men and transgender women who sell sex in Bangkok and Pattaya, Thailand: findings from the open-label combination HIV prevention effectiveness (COPE) study

“…In 2021, key population led health services (KPLHS) provided PrEP for approximately two-thirds of the 13,769 PrEP clients in Thailand, 12 and PrEP use stigma appears lower among KPLHS PrEP clients than hospital PrEP clients. 34 Expanding combination HIV prevention interventions with PrEP through these organizations will require increasing the program space in which these providers operate and sustainability will require additional domestic funding. In addition to demonstrating the effectiveness and feasibility of this approach, building coalitions with multiple domestic and international stakeholders may support successful integration of key population based PrEP interventions into the national healthcare system.…”

HIV Late Presenters in Asia: Management and Public Health Challenges

“…It is important to note that stigma and discrimination directed against key populations most affected by HIV, including men who have sex with men, transgender individuals, people who use drugs and sex workers, also have been implicated in poorer HIV-related outcomes. In settings where they are discriminated against, members of key populations are less likely to test regularly for HIV, access preventative care such as pre-exposure prophylaxis, and are less likely to have access to risk reduction interventions such as substance recovery programmes and safer sex education [36][37][38][39]. Discriminatory treatment and marginalisation by policy makers and healthcare providers further deters individuals from accessing early screening and treatment [40].…”