Design and implementation of a multilevel intervention to reduce hepatitis c transmission among men who have sex with men in Amsterdam: Co-creation and usability study

Background: In the Netherlands, transmission of hepatitis C virus (HCV) occurs primarily among men who have sex with men (MSM). Early HCV testing of at-risk MSM and immediate initiation of treatment will prevent onward transmission, but this may not be sufficient to eliminate HCV in a population with ongoing risk behaviors. Therefore, targeted socioculturally acceptable preventive measures, including behavioral interventions, are urgently needed. Currently, little contextually appropriate information about HCV or risk reduction interventions is available. Objective: The objective of this project was to develop an intervention to reduce HCV transmission among MSM in Amsterdam through a co-creation process, with the input of men from the targeted community directly impacting intervention content, design, and implementation. Methods: We developed a multilevel intervention targeting 6 levels: individual, community, professional, context, patient, and network. The intervention was developed in close cooperation between health professionals, gay community members, commercial stakeholders, and stakeholders from within the gay community. The co-creation process had 4 phases: a needs assessment, stakeholder engagement, co-creation, and implementation. The co-creation phase continued until consensus was reached between the researchers and community members on the intervention content and design. The final intervention, NoMoreC, was completed within 2 years, and implementation started in February 2018. Results: NoMoreC includes web-based and face-to-face components as well as an anonymous HCV testing service. The NoMoreC website provides information about hepatitis C, HCV transmission routes, risk reduction strategies, testing and treatment options, and partner notification. The face-to-face component comprises a risk reduction toolbox, training for health professionals, and providing tailored advice to sex on premises venues. NoMoreC is promoted by an active voluntary campaign team. Conclusions: Involving the community and stakeholders in the creation of NoMoreC has been the main strength of this project. It has resulted in an intervention with various components that resonates with the gay community at risk of HCV infection. The uptake and acceptability of the described intervention will be evaluated in the future. The description of the co-creation process and implementation of the project may serve as a rich and useful source for others who want to develop culturally and context appropriate HCV interventions

PrEP in the Context of Other HIV Risk Reduction Strategies Among Men Who Have Sex with Men:Results from the Flash! PrEP in Europe Survey

Combination HIV prevention covers a range of biomedical, behavioral, and socio-structural interventions. Despite the growing availability of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), it is not always accessible in European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control reporting countries and may not meet the needs of all at-risk populations. Based on the Flash! PrEP in Europe data, multiple correspondence analysis and hierarchical clustering were used to identify patterns in HIV prevention strategies among 9980 men who have sex with men (MSM). PrEP interest was evaluated among four identified clusters: (A) "high condom use, sometimes Treatment as Prevention (TasP)"; (B) "mix of methods, infrequent condom use"; (C) "high condom use, tendency to choose partners based on serological status" and (D) "moderate use of condoms mixed with other prevention strategies". Clusters B and D had higher PrEP interest. These results suggest that MSM use a range of behavioral and biomedical risk reduction strategies that are often combined. On-demand PrEP may meet the needs of MSM who infrequently use condoms and other prevention methods

Mpox vaccination willingness, determinants, and communication needs in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men, in the context of limited vaccine availability in the Netherlands (Dutch Mpox-survey).

Of respondents, 81.5% (n = 1,512/1,856) were willing to accept vaccination; this was 85.2% (799/938) in vaccination-eligible people and 77.7% (713/918) in those non-eligible. Determinants for non-acceptance included: urbanization (rural: aOR:2.2;1.2-3.7; low-urban: aOR:2.4;1.4-3.9; vs. high-urban), not knowing mpox-vaccinated persons (aOR:2.4;1.6-3.4), and lack of connection to gay/queer-community (aOR:2.0;1.5-2.7). Beliefs associated with acceptance were: perception of higher risk/severity of mpox, higher protection motivation, positive outcome expectations post vaccination, and perceived positive social norms regarding vaccination. Respondents recommended better accessible communication, delivered regularly and stigma-free, with facts on mpox, vaccination and procedures, and other preventive options. Also, they recommended, "vaccine provision also at non-clinic settings, discrete/anonymous options, self-registration" to be vaccinated and other inclusive vaccine-offers (e.g., also accessible to people not in existing patient-registries)

Mpox vaccination willingness, determinants, and communication needs in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men, in the context of limited vaccine availability in the Netherlands (Dutch Mpox-survey).

Of respondents, 81.5% (n = 1,512/1,856) were willing to accept vaccination; this was 85.2% (799/938) in vaccination-eligible people and 77.7% (713/918) in those non-eligible. Determinants for non-acceptance included: urbanization (rural: aOR:2.2;1.2-3.7; low-urban: aOR:2.4;1.4-3.9; vs. high-urban), not knowing mpox-vaccinated persons (aOR:2.4;1.6-3.4), and lack of connection to gay/queer-community (aOR:2.0;1.5-2.7). Beliefs associated with acceptance were: perception of higher risk/severity of mpox, higher protection motivation, positive outcome expectations post vaccination, and perceived positive social norms regarding vaccination. Respondents recommended better accessible communication, delivered regularly and stigma-free, with facts on mpox, vaccination and procedures, and other preventive options. Also, they recommended, "vaccine provision also at non-clinic settings, discrete/anonymous options, self-registration" to be vaccinated and other inclusive vaccine-offers (e.g., also accessible to people not in existing patient-registries)

Mpox vaccination willingness, determinants, and communication needs in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men, in the context of limited vaccine availability in the Netherlands (Dutch Mpox-survey)

Introduction: In the 2022 multicountry mpox (formerly named monkeypox) outbreak, several countries offered primary preventive vaccination (PPV) to people at higher risk for infection. We study vaccine acceptance and its determinants, to target and tailor public health (communication-) strategies in the context of limited vaccine supply in the Netherlands. Methods: Online survey in a convenience sample of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men, including transgender persons (22/07-05/09/2022, the Netherlands). We assessed determinants for being (un)willing to accept vaccination. We used multivariable multinominal regression and logistic regression analyses, calculating adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95 percent confidence-intervals. An open question asked for campaigning and procedural recommendations. Results: Of respondents, 81.5% (n = 1,512/1,856) were willing to accept vaccination; this was 85.2% (799/938) in vaccination-eligible people and 77.7% (713/918) in those non-eligible. Determinants for non-acceptance included: urbanization (rural: aOR:2.2;1.2?3.7; low-urban: aOR:2.4;1.4?3.9; vs. high-urban), not knowing mpox-vaccinated persons (aOR:2.4;1.6?3.4), and lack of connection to gay/queer-community (aOR:2.0;1.5?2.7). Beliefs associated with acceptance were: perception of higher risk/severity of mpox, higher protection motivation, positive outcome expectations post vaccination, and perceived positive social norms regarding vaccination. Respondents recommended better accessible communication, delivered regularly and stigma-free, with facts on mpox, vaccination and procedures, and other preventive options. Also, they recommended, ?vaccine provision also at non-clinic settings, discrete/anonymous options, self-registration? to be vaccinated and other inclusive vaccine-offers (e.g., also accessible to people not in existing patient-registries). Conclusion: In the public health response to the mpox outbreak, key is a broad and equitable access to information, and to low-threshold vaccination options for those at highest risk. Communication should be uniform and transparent and tailored to beliefs, and include other preventive options. Mpox vaccine willingness was high. Public health efforts may be strengthened in less urbanized areas and reach out to those who lack relevant (community) social network influences