Daily Minority Stress and Affect among Gay and Bisexual Men: A 30-day Diary Study

Background. This study examined the time-variant association between daily minority stress and daily affect among gay and bisexual men. Tests of time-lagged associations allow for a stronger causal examination of minority stress-affect associations compared with static assessments. Multilevel modeling allows for comparison of associations between minority stress and daily affect when minority stress is modeled as a between-person factor and a within-person time-fluctuating state. Methods. 371 gay and bisexual men in New York City completed a 30-day daily diary, recording daily experiences of minority stress and positive affect (PA), negative affect (NA), and anxious affect (AA). Multilevel analyses examined associations between minority stress and affect in both same-day and time-lagged analyses, with minority stress assessed as both a between-person factor and a within-person state. Results. Daily minority stress, modeled as both a between-person and within-person construct, significantly predicted lower PA and higher NA and AA. Daily minority stress also predicted lower subsequent-day PA and higher subsequent-day NA and AA. Limitations. Self-report assessments and the unique sample may limit generalizability of this study. Conclusions. The time-variant association between sexual minority stress and affect found here substantiates the basic tenet of minority stress theory with a fine-grained analysis of gay and bisexual men’s daily experience. Time-lagged effects suggest a potentially causal pathway between minority stress as a social determinant of mood and anxiety disorder symptoms among gay and bisexual men. When modeled as both a between-person factor and within-person state, minority stress demonstrated expected patterns with affect

Putting PrEP into Practice: Lessons Learned from Early-Adopting U.S. Providers’ Firsthand Experiences Providing HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis and Associated Care

Optimizing access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an evidence-based HIV prevention resource, requires expanding healthcare providers’ adoption of PrEP into clinical practice. This qualitative study explored PrEP providers’ firsthand experiences relative to six commonly-cited barriers to prescription—financial coverage, implementation logistics, eligibility determination, adherence concerns, side effects, and anticipated behavior change (risk compensation)—as well as their recommendations for training PrEP-inexperienced providers. U.S.-based PrEP providers were recruited via direct outreach and referral from colleagues and other participants (2014–2015). One-on-one interviews were conducted in person or by phone, transcribed, and analyzed. The sample (n = 18) primarily practiced in the Northeastern (67%) or Southern (22%) U.S. Nearly all (94%) were medical doctors (MDs), most of whom self-identified as infectious disease specialists. Prior experience prescribing PrEP ranged from 2 to 325 patients. Overall, providers reported favorable experiences with PrEP implementation and indicated that commonly anticipated problems were minimal or manageable. PrEP was covered via insurance or other programs for most patients; however, pre-authorization requirements, laboratory/service provision costs, and high deductibles sometimes presented challenges. Various models of PrEP care and coordination with other providers were utilized, with several providers highlighting the value of clinical staff support. Eligibility was determined through joint decision-making with patients; CDC guidelines were commonly referenced but not considered absolute. Patient adherence was variable, with particularly strong adherence noted among patients who had actively sought PrEP (self-referred). Providers observed minimal adverse effects or increases in risk behavior. However, they identified several barriers with respect to accessing and engaging PrEP candidates. Providers offered a wide range of suggestions regarding content, strategy, and logistics surrounding PrEP training, highlighting sexual history-taking and sexual minority competence as areas to prioritize. These insights from early-adopting PrEP providers may facilitate adoption of PrEP into clinical practice by PrEP-inexperienced providers, thereby improving access for individuals at risk for HIV

Putting PrEP into Practice: Lessons Learned from Early-Adopting U.S. Providers’ Firsthand Experiences Providing HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis and Associated Care

Optimizing access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an evidence-based HIV prevention resource, requires expanding healthcare providers’ adoption of PrEP into clinical practice. This qualitative study explored PrEP providers’ firsthand experiences relative to six commonly-cited barriers to prescription – financial coverage, implementation logistics, eligibility determination, adherence concerns, side effects, and anticipated behavior change (risk compensation) – as well as their recommendations for training PrEP-inexperienced providers. U.S.-based PrEP providers were recruited via direct outreach and referral from colleagues and other participants (2014-2015). One-on-one interviews were conducted in person or by phone, transcribed, and analyzed. The sample (n = 18) primarily practiced in the Northeastern (67%) or Southern (22%) U.S. Nearly all (94%) were medical doctors (MDs), most of whom self-identified as infectious disease specialists. Prior experience prescribing PrEP ranged from 2 to 325 patients. Overall, providers reported favorable experiences with PrEP implementation and indicated that commonly anticipated problems were minimal or manageable. PrEP was covered via insurance or other programs for most patients; however, pre-authorization requirements, laboratory/service provision costs, and high deductibles sometimes presented challenges. Various models of PrEP care and coordination with other providers were utilized, with several providers highlighting the value of clinical staff support. Eligibility was determined through joint decision-making with patients; CDC guidelines were commonly referenced but not considered absolute. Patient adherence was variable, with particularly strong adherence noted among patients who had actively sought PrEP (self-referred). Providers observed minimal adverse effects or increases in risk behavior. However, they identified several barriers with respect to accessing and engaging PrEP candidates. Providers offered a wide range of suggestions regarding content, strategy, and logistics surrounding PrEP training, highlighting sexual history-taking and sexual minority competence as areas to prioritize. These insights from early-adopting PrEP providers may facilitate adoption of PrEP into clinical practice by PrEP-inexperienced providers, thereby improving access for individuals at risk for HIV

Project ESTEEM protocol: a randomized controlled trial of an LGBTQ-affirmative treatment for young adult sexual minority men’s mental and sexual health

Background Young gay and bisexual men disproportionately experience depression, anxiety, and substance use problems and are among the highest risk group for HIV infection in the U.S. Diverse methods locate the source of these health disparities in young gay and bisexual men’s exposure to minority stress. In fact, minority stress, psychiatric morbidity, substance use, and HIV risk fuel each other, forming a synergistic threat to young gay and bisexual men’s health. Yet no known intervention addresses minority stress to improve mental health, substance use problems, or their joint impact on HIV risk in this population. This paper describes the design of a study to test the efficacy of such an intervention, called ESTEEM (Effective Skills to Empower Effective Men), a 10-session skills-building intervention designed to reduce young gay and bisexual men’s co-occurring health risks by addressing the underlying cognitive, affective, and behavioral pathways through which minority stress impairs health. Methods This study, funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, is a three-arm randomized controlled trial to examine (1) the efficacy of ESTEEM compared to community mental health treatment and HIV counseling and testing and (2) whether ESTEEM works through its hypothesized cognitive, affective, and behavioral minority stress processes. Our primary outcome, measured 8 months after baseline, is condomless anal sex in the absence of PrEP or known undetectable viral load of HIV+ primary partners. Secondary outcomes include depression, anxiety, substance use, sexual compulsivity, and PrEP uptake, also measured 8 months after baseline. Discussion Delivering specific stand-alone treatments for specific mental, behavioral, and sexual health problems represents the current state of evidence-based practice. However, dissemination and implementation of this one treatment-one problem approach has not been ideal. A single intervention that reduces young gay and bisexual men’s depression, anxiety, substance use, and HIV risk by reducing the common minority stress pathways across these problems would represent an efficient, cost-effective alternative to currently isolated approaches, and holds great promise for reducing sexual orientation health disparities among young men. Trial registration Registered October 10, 2016 to ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02929069

Let\u27s Be a Person to Person and Have a Genuine Conversation : Comparing Perspectives on PrEP and Sexual Health Communication Between Black Sexual Minority Men and Healthcare Providers

Patient-provider communication is a key factor affecting HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) awareness and access among Black sexual minority men (SMM). Optimizing patient-provider communication requires a deeper understanding of communication dynamics. In this study, we investigated the perspectives of both HIV-negative/status-unknown Black SMM and practicing community healthcare providers regarding patient-provider communication about PrEP and sexual health. We conducted eleven semi-structured qualitative focus groups (six with Black SMM; five with providers) in the Northeastern USA and thematically analyzed transcripts. A total of 36 Black SMM and 27 providers participated in the focus groups. Our analysis revealed points of alignment and divergence in the two groups\u27 perspectives related to patient-provider communication. Points of alignment included: (1) the importance ascribed to maximizing patients\u27 comfort and (2) belief in patients\u27 right to non-discriminatory healthcare. Points of divergence included: (1) Black SMM\u27s preference for sexual privacy versus providers\u27 preference that patients share sexual information, (2) Black SMM\u27s perception that providers have an ethical responsibility to initiate conversations about PrEP with patients versus providers\u27 perception of such conversations as being optional, and (3) Black SMM\u27s preference for personalized sexual health conversations versus providers\u27 preference for standardized conversations. Findings underscore a need for providers to offer more patient-centered sexual healthcare to Black SMM, which should entail routinely presenting all prevention options available-including PrEP-and inviting open dialogue about sex, while also respecting patients\u27 preferences for privacy about their sexuality. This approach could increase PrEP access and improve equity in the US healthcare system

Recommendations for Provider-Targeted PrEP Training Programs.

<p>Recommendations for Provider-Targeted PrEP Training Programs.</p