Abstract
Although HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) effectively and safely prevents HIV among adolescents, uptake of PrEP is low. Adolescents must have primary care providers (PCPs) prescribe them PrEP, making PCPs critical actors in PrEP delivery. However, research has primarily investigated determinants of PCPs’ intention to prescribe adolescents PrEP rather than the determinants of performing the behavior itself. We examined the demographic, clinical practice, and implementation determinants of PCPs previously prescribing PrEP to adolescents. PCPs were recruited from a national Qualtrics panel of licensed medical providers in the United States from July 15-August 19, 2022. The Theoretical Domains Framework informed the implementation determinants measured. A multivariable logistic regression was used. PCPs who were more knowledgeable of the CDC guidelines (aOR 2.97, 95% CI 2.16–4.10), who were assigned male at birth (aOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.03–2.59), and who practiced in the Western region (aOR 1.85, 95% CI 1.04–3.30) had greater odds of prior prescribing adolescents PrEP. Provider-based educational interventions should be designed, implemented, and tested to encourage PCPs to prescribe PrEP to eligible adolescents.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
In 2019, adolescents and young adults (13–24 years old) accounted for one-fifth of new HIV infections in the United States (US)1. The Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE)2 initiative, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)3, and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)4 recommend primary care providers (PCPs) prescribe HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to patients at risk for contracting HIV and who meet PrEP eligibility requirements, including adolescents. Although adolescents and young adults are at risk of contracting HIV, adolescents and young adults have the greatest unmet need for PrEP among all other age groups5,6,7,8,9. Adolescents accounted for 1.5% of all PrEP users in the US in 2012–201710. Given that adolescents need a prescription from a medical provider for PrEP, PCPs are pivotal in increasing PrEP uptake among adolescents who meet eligibility requirements.
There is a growing literature on the prevalence and determinants of PCPs prescribing adolescents PrEP11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. Knowledge about prescribing guidelines, beliefs about safety and patient adherence, parent and confidentiality concerns, self-efficacy, perceived norms, and clinical resources are salient determinants in PCPs’ willingness to prescribe PrEP to eligible adolescents12,16,19. However, much of this research has been done before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved PrEP for minors11,12,13,14,15,16,17, thus investigating hypothetical determinants. Only one survey study19 examined the determinants of a national sample of PCPs prescribing PrEP to adolescents post-FDA approval, but the authors examined intention to prescribe rather than actually prescribing PrEP to adolescents. Only one study16 investigated determinants of medical providers previously prescribing PrEP to adolescents; however, the authors sampled HIV providers affiliated with the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions (ATN), a provider group who might be more knowledgeable and comfortable prescribing PrEP to adolescents.
Research is needed to investigate the determinants of PCPs prescribing PrEP to adolescent patients, especially now that the FDA approved PrEP for minors. Such information can be used to identify determinants of actual prescription (rather than intention or willingness), and this information can be used to develop and test provider-based interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine the demographic, clinical practice, and implementation determinants of prior prescription of PrEP to adolescents among a national sample of PCPs. The Theoretical Domains Framework20 informed our study. The Theoretical Domains Framework is an integrated framework that combines common health psychology and health service theoretical frameworks. As such, it consists of multiple determinants across ecological levels, such as knowledge at the intrapersonal level, social influence at the interpersonal level, and environmental resources at the organizational level. We chose the Theoretical Domains Framework for four reasons. First, this theoretical framework is commonly used to examine determinants associated with PCPs delivering evidence-based practices21. Second, the Theoretical Domains Framework consists of more determinants than previously used theoretical frameworks in PCP PrEP research, such as the three determinants in the Theory of Planned Behavior or the five innovation characteristic determinants in the Diffusion of Innovation14,15,16. Finally, the Theoretical Domains Framework determinants can be measured with a validated questionnaire—the Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire22. Fourth, the Theoretical Domains Framework has been successfully used to investigate the determinants of PCPs’ intention to prescribe adolescents PrEP19.
Methods
Data collection
This study collected data from July 15th to August 19th, 2022, using a Qualtrics panel of licensed providers in the US23. Providers were eligible if they specialized in family medicine or pediatrics. Before joining the Qualtrics provider panel, panel members entered their medical license numbers, and Qualtrics checked their license numbers for accuracy. Qualtrics sent an invitation email to a random sample of panel members to participate in the online cross-sectional survey. The email provided the estimated completion time and incentives. Qualtrics administers its incentive program, where panel members can redeem survey completions with gift cards, cash, and other incentives. Qualtrics automatically removed responses in which the individual did not pass data quality measures, such as attention checks, CAPTCHA, and being outside the average completion time. The Texas A&M University Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved all of the study’s protocols (IRB2022-0695M). This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the university’s IRB. Electronic informed consent was obtained from all participants before they started the questionnaire (I agree to participate, I disagree to participate). All participants were 18 years and older. The final sample was 528.
Measures
Demographic characteristics
Participants were asked about their age, assigned sex at birth, gender identity (male, female, genderqueer, non-binary, transgender, agender, another option), sexual orientation (gay or lesbian, bisexual, queer, unsure or questioning, straight or heterosexual, pansexual, asexual, another option), ethnicity (yes or no as Hispanic), race (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Asian American, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latin American, Middle Eastern or Arab American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, White, Another option), and political ideology (1 = very conservative, 4 = middle of the road, and 7 = very liberal). We recoded demographic variables as 0 = female and 1 = male; 0 = gender minority and 1 = heterosexual; 0 = sexual minority and 1 = heterosexual; 0 = person of color and 1 = Non-Hispanic White; political ideology was kept as a continuous variable. We examined these demographic variables because prior research has shown demographic differences in PrEP prescription willingness or prior PrEP prescription, such as providers’ sex and race/ethnicity24.
Clinical practice characteristics
Participants were asked about their provider type (physician MD or DO, nurse practitioner, physician assistant), their zip code and state where their practice or clinic was located, if they had ever taken a sexual history of an adolescent aged 13–18 years old in their current clinic or practice setting (0 = no and 1 = yes), ordered or recommended an HIV test for an adolescent in their current setting (0 = no and 1 = yes), ordered or recommended an STI or STD test to an adolescent in their current setting (0 = no and 1 = yes), and if they had ever prescribed an adolescent aged 13–18 PrEP (0 = no and 1 = yes). We recoded states in the four US Census Regions25. We recoded zip code into rural/urban status using the Index of Relative Rurality26. The Index of Relative Rurality is a continuous rural–urban classification scale, where 0.00 is the most urban and 1.00 is the most rural.
Theoretical domains framework determinants
Participants were asked how much they agree or disagree with the Theoretical Domains Framework determinants (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree). All the determinants consisted of a single item to reduce participant burden, participant time, and survey costs. Items were adapted from the Determinants of Implementation Behavior Questionnaire22. The 11 items were knowledge (I am aware of how to prescribe sexually active adolescents HIV PrEP following the CDC guidelines), skills (I have the skills to prescribe sexually active adolescents HIV PrEP), professional role (Prescribing sexually active adolescents HIV PrEP is consistent with my professional role), belief capacity (I am confident that I can prescribe sexually active adolescents HIV PrEP), optimism (I am optimistic when prescribing sexually active adolescents HIV PrEP), belief consequence (If I prescribe sexually active adolescents HIV PrEP, it will benefit public health), attention (When I need to concentrate to prescribe sexually active adolescents HIV PrEP, I have no trouble focusing my attention), environmental resource (In my clinic, all necessary resources are available to prescribe sexually active adolescents HIV PrEP), social influence (Most professional in my organization think that I should prescribe sexually active adolescents HIV PrEP), emotion (I would enjoy prescribing sexually active adolescents HIV PrEP), and intention (I intend to prescribe sexually active adolescents HIV PrEP).
Analysis
Data were analyzed using Stata 18. First, descriptive statistics were ran on all variables: number (N), percentage (%), mean (M), and standard deviation (SD). Second, a bivariate analysis was done to find correlations between all variables in relation to prior HIV PrEP prescription (0 = no, 1 = yes). Point-biserial correlations (rpb) were used for continuous variables and chi-square tests (χ2) for categorical variables. Finally, a multivariable logistic regression was ran using the statistically significant variables from the bivariate analysis, with the outcome variable being the prior prescription of PrEP to an adolescent. We report the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). For all analyses, a p-value (p) ≤ 0.05 was statistically significant.
Results
Demographic characteristics
Of the 528 respondents, 55.68% were assigned male at birth and 44.32% were assigned female at birth. Most PCPs identified as cisgender (97.92%) and heterosexual (92.61%). About three-quarters were Non-Hispanic White (70.45%), while one-quarter were a person of color (29.55%). The average age of PCPs was 52.47 years old (SD = 10.84). PCPs were nearly equally distributed among political ideologies (M = 4.07, SD = 1.68): 37.13% lean overall conservative, 22.92% lean middle of the road, and 39.96% lean overall liberal. See Table 1 for more information about the frequency of demographic characteristics.
Clinical practice characteristics
Table 1 also depicts the clinical practice characteristics of the sample. Most providers self-reported as physicians (96.59%), with 11 nurse practitioners and seven physician assistants. Providers were equally split among pediatrics (51.14%) and family medicine specialists (48.86%). Providers practiced throughout the US, with 36.36% in the South, 26.52% in the Midwest, 20.08% in the Northeast, and 17.05% in the West. The mean Index of Relative Rurality score was 0.29 (SD = 0.12), indicating most of the sample practiced in an urban county. Nearly all providers took a sexual history of an adolescent patient aged 13–18 within their current clinic or practice setting (96.02%). Similarly, most providers ordered or recommended an HIV test (92.42%) and an STI or STD test (95.64%) to adolescents aged 13–18 within their current clinic or practice setting. Most providers heard of PrEP before participating in the study (89.02%), and 29.92% had prescribed PrEP to an adolescent aged 13–18.
Theoretical domains framework characteristics
Table 2 shows the frequencies of the 11 Theoretical Domains Framework determinants. All of the Theoretical Domains Framework determinants, but one, had a neutral mean. Belief consequence—also known as instrumental attitude or outcome expectation—had a mean of 4.23 (SD = 0.78), with 88.07% of participants overall agreeing that prescribing PrEP to adolescents will benefit public health. Approximately three-quarters of participants strongly agreed or agreed that prescribing PrEP to adolescents is consistent with their professional role (77.46%, M = 3.93, SD = 0.98), they have the skills to prescribe PrEP to adolescents (73.48%, M = 3.74, SD = 1.08), they are confident or have self-efficacy they can prescribe PrEP to adolescents (70.46%, M = 3.73, SD = 1.03), and they intend to prescribe adolescents PrEP in the future (70.45%, M = 3.81, SD = 0.86). Fifty-seven percent of participants overall agreed that they have clinical resources to prescribe adolescents PrEP (57.76%, M = 3.45, SD = 1.12), and they have no trouble focusing their attention when prescribing adolescents PrEP (57.76%, M = 3.95, SD = 0.97). About half of the participants strongly agreed or agreed that they are aware of how to prescribe adolescents PrEP based on the CDC guidelines (54.92%, M = 3.28, SD = 1.19), and they are optimistic when prescribing adolescents PrEP (50.00%, M = 3.44, SD = 0.91). Nearly one-third of participants overall agreed that they would enjoy prescribing PrEP to adolescents (39.77%, M = 3.28, SD = 0.94), and most professionals in their organization think that they should prescribe adolescents PrEP (37.12%, M = 3.27, SD = 0.96).
Bivariate analyses
The bivariate analyses are listed in Table 3. All of the 11 Theoretical Domains Framework determinants were positively correlated with prior prescription of PrEP to an adolescent: knowledge (rpb = 13.24, p < 0.001), intention (rpb = 0.27, p < 0.001), skills (rpb = 0.27, p < 0.001), belief capacity or self-efficacy (rpb = 0.27, p < 0.001), emotion (rpb = 0.15, p < 0.01), optimism (rpb = 0.25, p < 0.01), professional role (rpb = 0.24, p < 0.01), environmental resource (rpb = 0.23, p < 0.01), social influence or perceived norm (rpb = 0.23, p < 0.001), belief consequence or outcome expectation (rpb = 0.15, p < 0.001), and attention (rpb = 0.13, p < 0.001).
The only demographic variable that was correlated with prior prescription of PrEP was sex assigned at birth, with prior prescription being positively associated with assigned male at birth (χ2 = 13.24, p < 0.001). Regarding clinical practice variables, prior prescription of PrEP to adolescents was positively correlated with prior ordering or recommending of an HIV test to an adolescent (χ2 = 10.38, p < 0.001), prior ordering or recommending of an STD/STI test to an adolescent (χ2 = 5.17, p = 0.05), prior hearing about PrEP (χ2 = 27.82, p < 0.001), if the provider was located in the Western region of the US (χ2 = 6.47, p < 0.05), and if the provider specialized in pediatrics (χ2 = 10.70, p < 0.01).
Logistic regression
Table 4 presents results from the multivariable logistic regression. The multivariable logistic regression model is statistically significant, χ2 (16) = 156.68, p < 0.001. The model explained 36.4% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in prior PrEP prescriptions. The only Theoretical Domains Framework that was associated with previously prescribing adolescents PrEP was knowledge of the CDC guidelines (aOR = 2.97, 95% CI 2.16–4.10). The model showed that providers assigned male at birth have 1.64 times greater odds of previously prescribing PrEP to adolescents than providers assigned female at birth (aOR = 1.64, 95% CI 1.03–2.59). The model depicted providers located in the Western region of the US had 1.85 times greater odds of having prescribed an adolescent PrEP as opposed to the other regions (aOR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.04–3.30).
Discussion
This is the first national study to analyze the demographic, clinical practice, and implementation determinants of PCPs prior PrEP prescription behaviors to adolescents after the FDA approved PrEP for minors. Approximately 30% of our sample reported they ever prescribed PrEP to an adolescent patient, and this is similar other studies12,19 that reported about one-third of providers in their sample ever prescribed PrEP to an adolescent. Our study was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework20, a common implementation framework used to examine the implementation factors of providers delivering an evidence-based practice21. One variable per the Theoretical Domains Framework (knowledge), demographic characteristics (sex assigned at birth), and clinical practice characteristics (region) were significant. Our findings have important implications for behavioral-based education, theory, and practice on prescribing PrEP to adolescents.
Knowledge about the CDC’s guidelines has been shown to be a significant determinant in PCPs’ intention to prescribe adolescents PrEP12,16,19, and our finding suggests that knowledge extends into actually prescribing adolescents PrEP. This illustrates the need for PCPs to be educated about the CDC’s guidelines, as knowledge is associated with PCPs prescribing PrEP to adult patients27,28,29,30,31,32,33. Multiple on-site trainings34 might be more effective in increasing PrEP prescription behavior than single session trainings35. Moreover, medical schools could incorporate the CDC’s guidelines into their medical education and medical residency programs, as medical students report PrEP is not included in their training36,37,38,39. Future research should examine what facilitators and barriers medical school, residency, and clinic leaders have in providing PrEP training.
While our study found that the only statistically significant Theoretical Domains Framework determinant was knowledge, prior research has highlighted several other determinants, including PCPs’ attitudes, self-efficacy and skills, professional roles, perceived norms, and clinical environment resources11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. This might not be surprising, as providers who have more positive attitudes about an evidence-based practice and more clinical resources are more likely to deliver that evidence-based practice. A possible explanation is that knowledge might be a moderator or mediator for other determinants. Indeed, a study33 utilizing the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skill Model (IMB) demonstrated that PrEP-related information directly affected the PrEP-related attitudes and skills among PCPs. While the Theoretical Domains Framework explained 42% of the variance of PCPs’ intention to prescribe PrEP to their patients19, the IMB explained 50% of the variance33. Future studies might use the IMB as their theoretical framework in investigating the determinants of PCPs prescribing PrEP to teens.
We found that PCPs who are males at birth prescribed PrEP to adolescents more than PCPs females at birth. Nearly all of our sample were cisgender. While Owens et al.19 found sex was not a determinant of PCP’s willingness to prescribe PrEP to adolescents, Leech et al.40 found females were less likely than males to have prescribed PrEP to adult male patients. We hypothesize three reasons for why male PCPs prescribed adolescents PrEP more than female PCPs. First, adolescent41 and adult patients42 prefer to seek PCPs who share in the patient’s sex. Because HIV affects males at birth more than females at birth in the US, male PCPs may have more interactions than female PCPs with PrEP-eligible and PrEP-seeking patients. Second, systematic reviews have noted that male providers adopt new prescriptions earlier than female providers43,44. Third, more family medicine/general practice physicians are males (57.7%) than females (42.3%)45.
Our study showed that PCPs in the Western region had 1.85 greater odds of prescribing adolescents PrEP in the past. This result corroborates with the literature that consistently shows PrEP use is higher in the Northeastern and Western regions than in the Southern and Midwestern regions5,6,7,9. It is likely that PrEP prescriptions are higher in the Western region due to the availability of PrEP clinics and PrEP providers46,47 as well as policies such as Medicaid expansion and PrEP drug assistance programs5,6,48. For example, the concerted efforts by public health entities in California expanded access to PrEP through community pharmacies, Medicaid expansion, and PrEP assistance programs49,50. Public health and HIV entities could advocate for their state legislatures to adopt these PrEP access policies.
Moreover, Western and Northeastern states tend to allow minors to access HIV prevention services, including PrEP, without parental/guardian permission51,52. Thirty-four states and D.C. allow minors to consent to HIV prevention services; however, only 18 of these address confidentiality protections. Public health, HIV, and adolescent health entities might want to educate providers about their state’s minor consent/confidentiality laws, as providers tend to be unfamiliar with their state’s law, given the wide variability of minor consent laws53,54. Public health, HIV, and adolescent health entities might want to advocate for their state legislatures to increase the legal capacity of minors to consent to HIV prevention services. Research is necessary to understand the facilitators, barriers, and strategies that effectively change state laws that expand HIV prevention services to adolescents.
Limitations
This study has limitations. First, our sample was primarily composed of physicians, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants making up 3% of the sample. More research is necessary to examine the implementation determinants of nurse practitioners in states where they are given full prescriptive authority. Second, we utilized cross-sectional data, meaning we can claim correlations but not causations. Third, our patient vignette did not include the adolescent’s demographic characteristics. Similarly, participants provided their agreement and disagreement to questions about PrEP delivery to adolescents aged 13–18 years old rather than a specific age (e.g., 16 years old) or an age range (15–17). However, some states define minors as those who are 18–2151,52. Medical providers have noted in prior research that patient characteristics and providers’ perceptions of patients play a part in their intention to prescribe and in their actual prescribing of PrEP to adolescents12,13,14,15,17,18. Fourth, our study only analyzed prior prescription of PrEP and not other USPSTF recommendations regarding PrEP identification, discussion, and care, such as taking an HIV risk assessment to identify adolescents at risk of contracting HIV, educating adolescent patients and their parents about PrEP, or discussing the risks and benefits of the different PrEP medications and modalities (e.g., Truvada® v. Descovy® v. Apretude®; daily oral v. long-acting injectable)4.
Conclusion
This study, utilizing data collected from a national sample of PCPs, demonstrates that PCPs who are more knowledgeable about the CDC’s guidelines had greater the odds of prescribing adolescents PrEP. It might be beneficial to implement provider-targeted PrEP training and education programs to medical students, medical residents, and medical providers. Additionally, findings from our study suggest that scientists who study provider PrEP-related behavior might want to use theoretical frameworks that posit that information affects other constructs. We might have seen more PCPs prescribing PrEP to adolescents in the Western region because of state policies. Public health, HIV, and adolescent health entities might want to advocate state legislatures to adopt laws that allow adolescents to consent to HIV prevention services. Such education and legal interventions might increase the rates in which PCPs prescribe PrEP to eligible adolescents, therefore decreasing HIV rates among adolescents and young adults.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Diagnoses of HIV Infection in the United States and Dependent Areas. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html (2021).
Fauci, A. S., Redfield, R. R., Sigounas, G., Weahkee, M. D. & Giroir, B. P. Ending the HIV epidemic: A plan for the United States. JAMA 321, 844–845. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.1343 (2019).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preexposure Prophylaxis for the Prevention of HIV Infection in the United States—2021 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/risk/prep/cdc-hiv-prep-guidelines-2021.pdf (2021).
Barry, M. J. et al. Preexposure prophylaxis to prevent acquisition of HIV: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 330, 736–745. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.14461 (2023).
Siegler, A. J. et al. Policy-and county-level associations with HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis use, the United States, 2018. Ann. Epidemiol. 45, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.03.013 (2020).
Siegler, A. J. et al. The prevalence of pre-exposure prophylaxis use and the pre-exposure prophylaxis–to-need ratio in the fourth quarter of 2017, United states. Ann. Epidemiol. 28, 841–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.06.005 (2018).
Sullivan, P. S. et al. Trends in the use of oral emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for pre-exposure prophylaxis against HIV infection, United States, 2012–2017. Ann. Epidemiol. 28, 833–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.06.009 (2018).
Sullivan, P. S. et al. Methods for county-level estimation of pre-exposure prophylaxis coverage and application to the US ending the HIV epidemic jurisdictions. Ann. Epidemiol. 44, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2020.01.004 (2020).
AIDSVu. Deeper look: PrEP. https://aidsvu.org/resources/deeper-look-prep/.
Magnuson, D., Hawkins, T. & Mera, R. Journal of the International AIDS Society.
Brooks, R. A., Nieto, O., Cabral, A., Landrian, A. & Fehrenbacher, A. E. Delivering PrEP to adults with “low” or “no” HIV risk and youth: Experiences and perspectives of PrEP providers. Cult. Health Sex. 24, 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2020.1817560 (2020).
Hart-Cooper, G. D., Allen, I., Irwin, C. E. Jr. & Scott, H. Adolescent health providers’ willingness to prescribe pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to youth at risk of HIV infection in the United States. J. Adolesc. Health. 63, 242–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.03.016 (2018).
Mullins, T. L. K., Idoine, C. R., Zimet, G. D. & Kahn, J. A. Primary care physician attitudes and intentions toward the use of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in adolescents in one metropolitan region. J. Adolesc. Health. 64, 581–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.10.300 (2019).
Mullins, T. L. K., Lally, M., Zimet, G. & Kahn, J. A. Clinician attitudes toward CDC interim pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) guidance and operationalizing PrEP for adolescents. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 29, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2014.0273 (2015).
Mullins, T. L. K., Zimet, G., Lally, M. & Kahn, J. A. Adolescent human immunodeficiency virus care providers’ attitudes toward the use of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis in youth. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 30, 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2016.0048 (2016).
Mullins, T. L. K. et al. HIV care providers’ intentions to prescribe and actual prescription of pre-exposure prophylaxis to at-risk adolescents and adults. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 31, 504–516. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2017.0147 (2017).
Pina, P. et al. Provider comfort with prescribing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis to adolescents. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 35, 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2021.0045 (2021).
Valente, P. K., Rusley, J. C., Operario, D. & Biello, K. B. Readiness to provide oral and injectable PrEP for sexual and gender minority youth among healthcare providers and clinics in the US Northeast. J. Adolesc. Health. 72, 722–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.11.246 (2023).
Owens, C., Currin, J. M., Hoffman, M., Grant, M. J. & Hubach, R. D. Implementation factors associated with primary care providers’ intention to prescribe HIV PrEP to adolescents in the United States. J. Adolesc. Health. 73, 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2023.02.007 (2023).
Michie, S. et al. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. BMJ Qual. Saf. 14, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.011155 (2005).
Liang, L. et al. Use of theory to plan or evaluate guideline implementation among physicians: A scoping review. Implement. Sci. 12, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0557-0 (2017).
Huijg, J. M., Gebhardt, W. A., Crone, M. R., Dusseldorp, E. & Presseau, J. Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research. Implement. Sci. 9, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-11 (2014).
Qualtrics. Online Sample. https://www.qualtrics.com/research-services/online-sample/.
Zhang, C. et al. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis implementation cascade among health care professionals in the United States: Implications from a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 33, 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2019.0119 (2019).
United States Census Bureau. Geographic Terms and Concepts: Census Divisions and Census Regions. https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_census_divreg.html (2021).
Waldorf, B. S. & Kim, A. Defininh and Measuring Rurality in the US: From Typologies to Continous Indices. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_167036.pdf. (2015).
Agovi, A.M.-A. et al. Knowledge needs for implementing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among primary care providers in a safety-net health system. Prev. Med. Rep. 20, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101266 (2020).
Blumenthal, J. et al. Knowledge is power! Increased provider knowledge scores regarding pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) are associated with higher rates of PrEP prescription and future intent to prescribe PrEP. AIDS Behav. 19, 802–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-0996-z (2015).
Hakre, S. et al. Knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among US Air Force health care providers. Medicine. 95, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004511 (2016).
Moore, E. et al. Tennessee healthcare provider practices, attitudes, and knowledge around HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. J. Prim Care Community Health. 11, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/215013272098441 (2020).
Ramakrishnan, A., Sales, J. M., McCumber, M., Powell, L. & Sheth, A. N. Human immunodeficiency virus pre-exposure prophylaxis knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy among family planning providers in the Southern United States: Bridging the gap in provider training. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 9, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac536 (2022).
Seidman, D., Carlson, K., Weber, S., Witt, J. & Kelly, P. J. United States family planning providers’ knowledge of and attitudes towards preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: A national survey. Contraception. 93, 463–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2015.12.018 (2016).
Walsh, J. L. & Petroll, A. E. Factors related to pre-exposure prophylaxis prescription by U.S. primary care physicians. Am. J. Prev. Med. 52, 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.01.025 (2017).
Clement, M. E. et al. An educational initiative in response to identified PrEP prescribing needs among PCPs in the Southern US. AIDS Care. 30, 650–655. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2017.1384534 (2018).
Calabrese, S. K. et al. Acceptability and effectiveness of a one-hour healthcare provider intervention integrating HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and cultural competence training. AIDS Behav. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-023-04108-x (2023).
Armstrong, M., Nigh, E., Gill-Wiehl, G. & Doblecki-Lewis, S. Medical students’ perspectives on HIV prevention education in the preclinical years. AIDS Res. Hum. Retroviruses. 34, 817–819. https://doi.org/10.1089/aid.2018.0085 (2018).
Bunting, S. R., Calabrese, S. K., Garber, S. S., Ritchie, T. D. & Batteson, T. J. Where do health professions students learn about pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention?. Med. Sci. Educ. 31, 423–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01265-3 (2021).
Przybyla, S. et al. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) knowledge, familiarity, and attitudes among United States healthcare professional students: A cross-sectional study. Prev. Med. Rep. 22, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101334 (2021).
Terndrup, C. et al. A cross-sectional survey of internal medicine resident knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and experiences regarding pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 34, 1258–1278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-04947-2 (2019).
Leech, A. A. et al. Healthcare practitioner experiences and willingness to prescribe pre-exposure prophylaxis in the US. PLoS ONE. 15, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238375 (2020).
Kapphahn, C. J., Wilson, K. M. & Klein, J. D. Adolescent girls’ and boys’ preferences for provider gender and confidentiality in their health care. J. Adolesc. Health. 25, 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(99)00050-6 (1999).
Fink, M. et al. Objective data reveals gender preferences for patients’ primary care physician. J. Prim. Care Community Health. 11, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/2150132720967221 (2020).
Lublóy, Á. Factors affecting the uptake of new medicines: A systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 14, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-469 (2014).
Medlinskiene, K. et al. Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of new medicines into clinical practice: A systematic review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 21, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07196-4 (2021).
American Medical Association. Active Physicians by Sex and Speciality (2021). https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/data/active-physicians-sex-specialty-2021.
Siegler, A. J., Bratcher, A. & Weiss, K. M. Geographic access to preexposure prophylaxis clinics among men who have sex with men in the United States. Am. J. Public Health https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2019.305172 (2019).
Siegler, A. J. et al. Location location location: An exploration of disparities in access to publicly listed pre-exposure prophylaxis clinics in the United States. Ann. Epidemiol. 28, 858–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.05.006 (2018).
Karletsos, D. & Stoecker, C. Impact of medicaid expansion on PrEP utilization in the US: 2012–2018. AIDS Behav. 25, 1103–1111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-020-03070-2 (2021).
Kazi, D. S., Katz, I. T. & Jha, A. K. PrEParing to end the HIV epidemic—California’s route as a road map for the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 2489–2491. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1912293 (2019).
Lopez, M. I. et al. Implementation of pre-exposure prophylaxis at a community pharmacy through a collaborative practice agreement with San Francisco Department of Public Health. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 60, 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2019.06.021 (2020).
Nelson, K. M. et al. Minor consent laws for sexually transmitted infection and human immunodeficiency virus services in the United States: A comprehensive, longitudinal survey of US state laws. Am. J. Public Health. 113, 397–407. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307199 (2023).
Nelson, K. M., Skinner, A. & Underhill, K. Minor consent laws for sexually transmitted infection and HIV services. JAMA. 328, 674–676. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.10777 (2022).
Moore, A. L., Hasselbacher, L., Tyler, C. P., Rodriguez-Ortiz, A. E. & Gilliam, M. Are Illinois contraceptive providers comfortable providing care to adolescents? Results from a statewide provider needs assessment. Womens Health Issues. 33, 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2022.07.001 (2023).
Riley, M., Ahmed, S., Reed, B. D. & Quint, E. H. Physician knowledge and attitudes around confidential care for minor patients. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol. 28, 234–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2014.08.008 (2015).
Acknowledgements
The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Air Force Academy, U. S. Air Force, Department of Defense, or the U. S. Government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization was performed by C.O. and R.D.H. Data analyses were performed by G.P. and C.O. Original writing and editing were performed by C.O., G.P., J.M.C., and R.D.H.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Price, G., Hubach, R.D., Currin, J.M. et al. Knowledge, sex, and region associated with primary care providers prescribing adolescents HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis. Sci Rep 13, 16958 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44165-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44165-9
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
