Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34793575›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Factors that motivate men who have sex with men in Berlin, Germany, to use or consider using HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis-A multi-methods analysis of data from a multicentre survey.

Matthew Gaskins, Mary Katherine Sammons, Frank Kutscha, Alexander Nast, Ricardo Niklas Werner

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Matthew GaskinsDivision of Evidence-Based Medicine (dEBM), Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6436-2703
Mary Katherine SammonsDivision of Evidence-Based Medicine (dEBM), Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Frank KutschaDivision of Evidence-Based Medicine (dEBM), Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Alexander NastDivision of Evidence-Based Medicine (dEBM), Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.
Ricardo Niklas WernerDivision of Evidence-Based Medicine (dEBM), Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergy, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3209-1392

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile our knowledge of what motivates men who have sex with men (MSM) to use HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has grown in recent years, quantitative survey-based studies have not asked MSM explicitly to name their motivations. We did so using a qualitative open-ended question and aimed to categorise the responses and explore whether these were related to where MSM were located along a conceptual continuum of PrEP care.

methodsIn a multicentre survey examining knowledge and use of PrEP among MSM in Berlin, Germany, we additionally asked an open-ended question about motivations for using or considering PrEP. Data were collected from 10/2017-04/2018. One researcher developed a thematic framework deductively from the literature and another did so inductively from the free-text data, and a merged framework was used to code responses independently. We used Fisher's exact test to assess whether the frequency of motivations differed significantly between respondents using or considering PrEP.

resultsOf 875 questionnaires, 473 were returned and 228 contained a free-text response. Motivations in the following categories were reported: (1) Safety/protection against HIV (80.2% of participants, including general safety; additional protection to condoms), (2) Mental well-being and quality of life (23.5%, including reduced anxiety; better quality of life), (3) Condom attitudes (18.9% intent not to use condoms), (4) Expectations about sexuality (14.4%, including worry-free sex or more pleasurable sex, with explicit mention of sex or sexuality), (5) Norms/social perspectives (0.8%). The difference in frequencies of motivations between those using or considering PrEP was not statistically significant.

conclusionsSafety and protection against HIV, particularly having additional protection if condoms fail, were the most common motivations for using or considering PrEP, followed by mental well-being and quality of life. Many respondents reported several motivations, and responses overall were heterogeneous. This suggests that approaches to increase PrEP uptake that focus exclusively on its effectiveness in preventing HIV are unlikely to be as successful as a holistic approach that emphasises multiple motivations and how these fit into the broader sexual and psychological health of MSM.

Indexed as

BerlinCross-Sectional StudiesHIV InfectionsHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleMental HealthMotivationPre-Exposure ProphylaxisQuality of LifeSexual BehaviorSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34793575
PMCPMC8601504

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.