AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 1228–1238 | Cite as

Measuring Acceptability and Preferences for Implementation of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Using Conjoint Analysis: An Application to Primary HIV Prevention Among High Risk Drug Users

  • Roman Shrestha
  • Pramila Karki
  • Frederick L. Altice
  • Oleksandr Dubov
  • Liana Fraenkel
  • Tania Huedo-Medina
  • Michael Copenhaver
Original Paper


Although people who use drugs (PWUD) are one of the key risk populations who could benefit from the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), to date, little attention has been given to incorporating PrEP into HIV prevention approaches targeting this underserved group. This study investigated the acceptability of PrEP based on a number of known PrEP attributes among high-risk PWUD in a drug treatment setting. A total of 400 HIV-negative PWUD, who reported drug- and/or sex-related risk behaviors were recruited from a methadone clinic to complete a stated preference (full-profile conjoint) survey. Participants ranked the eight hypothetical PrEP program scenarios with varied combinations of six attributes related to PrEP (cost, dosing, efficacy, side-effects, treatment setting, and frequency of HIV testing). SPSS conjoint procedure was used to estimate the relative importance of each attribute and preferences across eight possible PrEP delivery programs. PrEP acceptability ranged from 30.6 to 86.3% with a mean acceptability of 56.2% across the eight hypothetical PrEP program scenarios. The PrEP program scenario with the highest acceptability had the following attribute levels: insurance covered, daily dosing, 95% effective, no side-effects, treatment at HIV clinic, and HIV testing needed every 6 months. The cost associated with PrEP was the most important attribute (relative importance score: RIS = 38.8), followed by efficacy (RIS = 20.5) and side effects (RIS = 11.9); other attributes had no significant effect. Our findings reported a high acceptability of PrEP in response to different PrEP program scenarios with different attribute profiles. As the result of having this information, researchers and policymakers will be better equipped for evidence informed targeting and dissemination efforts to optimize PrEP uptake among this underserved population.


HIV prevention Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) Conjoint analysis Patient preferences Implementation science People who use drugs (PWUD) 


Source of Funding

This work was supported by grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse for research (R01 DA025943 to FLA) and for career development (K24 DA017072 to FLA; K02 DA033139 to MMC, K24 AR060231 to LF).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

The study protocol was approved by the Investigational Review Board (IRB) at the University of Connecticut and received board approval from APT Foundation Inc. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Fonner VA, Dalglish SL, Kennedy CE, Baggaley R, O’Reilly KR, Koechlin FM, et al. Effectiveness and safety of oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis for all populations. AIDS. 2016;30(12):1973–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu AY, Vargas L, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2587–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, Mugo NR, Campbell JD, Wangisi J, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):399–410.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, Smith DK, Rose CE, Segolodi TM, et al. Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):423–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choopanya K, Martin M, Suntharasamai P, Sangkum U, Mock PA, Leethochawalit M, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV infection in injecting drug users in Bangkok, Thailand (the Bangkok Tenofovir Study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. The Lancet. 2013;381(9883):2083–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CDC. Preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in the United States—2014: a clinical practice guideline. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services USA—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    WHO. Guideline on when to start antiretroviral therapy and on pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. Geneva: WHO; 2015.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The White House Office of National AIDS Policy. National HIV/AIDS strategy for the United States: Updated to 2020. In. Washington D.C.: The White House Office of National AIDS Policy; 2015.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCormack S, Dunn DT, Desai M, Dolling DI, Gafos M, Gilson R, et al. Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent acquisition of HIV-1 infection (PROUD): effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomised trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10013):53–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Molina JM, Capitant C, Spire B, Pialoux G, Cotte L, Charreau I, et al. On-demand preexposure prophylaxis in men at high risk for HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(23):2237–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mannheimer S, Hirsch-Moverman Y, Loquere A, Franks J, Hughes J, Ou S-S, et al. HPTN 067/ADAPT study: a comparison of daily and intermittent pre-exposure prophylaxis dosing for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men and transgender women in New York city. In: JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL AIDS SOCIETY: INT AIDS SOCIETY AVENUE DE FRANCE 23, GENEVA, 1202, SWITZERLAND; 2015.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holtz TH, Chitwarakorn A, Curlin ME, Hughes J, Amico KR, Hendrix C, et al. (2015) HPTN 067/ADAPT study: a comparison of daily and non-daily pre-exposure prophylaxis dosing in Thai men who have sex with men, Bangkok, Thailand. Journal of the International Aids Society: INT AIDS Society Avenue De France 23, Geneva, 1202, Switzerland; 2015.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bekker L-G, Grant R, Hughes J, Roux S, Amico R, Hendrix C. HPTN 067/ADAPT Cape Town: a comparison of daily and nondaily PrEP dosing in African women. In: Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI); 2015. pp. 23-26.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kirby T, Thornber-Dunwell M. Uptake of PrEP for HIV slow among MSM. Lancet. 2014;383(9915):399–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shrestha R, Altice FL, Huedo-Medina TB, Karki P, Copenhaver M. Willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): an empirical test of the information-motivation-behavioral skills (IMB) model among high-risk drug users in treatment. AIDS Behav. 2016;21(5):1299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marshall BDL, Friedman SR, Monteiro JFG, Paczkowski M, Tempalski B, Pouget ER, et al. Prevention and treatment produced large decreases in HIV incidence in a model of people who inject drugs. Health Aff. 2014;33(3):401–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Volkow ND, Montaner J. The urgency of providing comprehensive and integrated treatment for substance abusers with HIV. Health Aff. 2011;30(8):1411–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alipour A, Haghdoost AA, Sajadi L, Zolala F. HIV prevalence and related risk behaviours among female partners of male injecting drugs users in Iran: results of a bio-behavioural survey, 2010. Sexually Transmitted Infections. 2013;89(Supplement 3):41–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nadol P, Tran H, Hammett T, Phan S, Nguyen D, Kaldor J, et al. High HIV prevalence and associated risk factors among female sexual partners of male injection drug users (MWID) in Ho chi minh city,Vietnam. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(2):395–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu A, Colfax G, Cohen S, Bacon O, Kolber M, Amico K, et al. The spectrum of engagement in HIV prevention: proposal for a PrEP cascade. In: 7th International Conference on HIV Treatment and Prevention Adherence Florida: Miami Beach; 2012.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Galea JT, Kinsler JJ, Salazar X, Lee S-J, Giron M, Sayles JN, et al. Acceptability of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) as an HIV prevention strategy: barriers and facilitators to PrEP uptake among at-risk Peruvian populations. Int J STD AIDS. 2011;22(5):256–62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wheelock A, Eisingerich AB, Ananworanich J, Gomez GB, Hallett TB, Dybul MR, et al. Are Thai MSM willing to take PrEP for HIV prevention? An analysis of attitudes, preferences and acceptance. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(1):e54288.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eisingerich AB, Wheelock A, Gomez GB, Garnett GP, Dybul MR, Piot PK. Attitudes and acceptance of oral and parenteral HIV preexposure prophylaxis among potential user groups: a multinational study. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(1):e28238.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2003;2(4):213–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER, Russell EM, et al. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(5):1–186.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ward J, Darke S, Hall W. The HIV risk-taking behaviour scale (HRBS) manual. Randwick: University of New South Wales Sydney, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre; 1990.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wilson IB, Lee Y, Michaud J, Fowler FJ, Rogers WH. Validation of a new three-item self-report measure for medication adherence. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(11):2700–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Uchida H, Onozaka Y, Morita T, Managi S. Demand for ecolabeled seafood in the Japanese market: a conjoint analysis of the impact of information and interaction with other labels. Food Policy. 2014;44:68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Foxall GR, Menon RV, Sigurdsson V. Conjoint analysis for social media marketing experimentation: choice, utility estimates and preference ranking. Manag Decis Econ. 2016;37(4–5):345–59.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Annunziata A, Vecchio R. Consumer perception of functional foods: a conjoint analysis with probiotics. Food Qual Prefer. 2013;28(1):348–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kievit W, Van Hulst L, Van Riel P, Fraenkel L. Factors that influence rheumatologists’ decisions to escalate care in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a choice-based conjoint analysis. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62(6):842–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lee S, Newman P, Comulada W, Cunningham W, Duan N. Use of conjoint analysis to assess HIV vaccine acceptability: feasibility of an innovation in the assessment of consumer health-care preferences. Int J STD AIDS. 2012;23(4):235–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Flynn TN. Using conjoint analysis and choice experiments to estimate QALY values. PharmacoEconomics. 2010;28(9):711–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Marshall D, McGregor SE, Currie G. Measuring preferences for colorectal cancer screening: what are the implications for moving forward? Patient. 2010;3(2):79–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bridges JF, Kinter ET, Kidane L, Heinzen RR, McCormick C. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982-2007. Patient. 2008;1(4):273–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shrestha R, Altice F, Karki P, Copenhaver M. Developing an integrated, brief bio-behavioral HIV prevention intervention for high risk drug users in treatment: the process and outcome of formative research. Front Immunol. 2017;8:561.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shackley P. Methodological issues in the application of conjoint analysis in health care. Health Econ. 1998;7(4):373–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Corp IBM. IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 23. Armonk: IBM Corp.; 2015.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ross MA, Avery AJ, Foss AJ. Views of older people on cataract surgery options: an assessment of preferences by conjoint analysis. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(1):13–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gowing L, Farrell MF, Bornemann R, Sullivan LE, Ali R. Oral substitution treatment of injecting opioid users for prevention of HIV infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;8:CD004145.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Karki P, Shrestha R, Huedo-Medina TB, Copenhaver M. The impact of methadone maintenance treatment on hiv risk behaviors among high-risk injection drug users: a systematic review. Evid Based Med Public Health. 2016;2:e1229.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Young I, Li J, McDaid L. Awareness and willingness to use hiv pre-exposure prophylaxis amongst gay and bisexual men in Scotland: implications for biomedical HIV prevention. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(5):e64038.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Goedel WC, Halkitis PN, Greene RE, Duncan DT. Correlates of awareness of and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men who use geosocial-networking smartphone applications in New York City. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(7):1435–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hoagland B, De Boni RB, Moreira RI, Madruga JV, Kallas EG, Goulart SP, et al. Awareness and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among men who have sex with men and transgender women in Brazil. AIDS Behav. 2016;21(5):1278–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ferrer L, Folch C, Fernandez-Davila P, Garcia A, Morales A, Belda J, et al. Awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis for hiv, willingness to use it and potential barriers or facilitators to uptake among men who have sex with men in Spain. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(7):1423–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Smith DK, Toledo L, Smith DJ, Adams MA, Rothenberg R. Attitudes and program preferences of African-American urban young adults about pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). AIDS Educ Prev. 2012;24(5):408–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brooks RA, Kaplan RL, Lieber E, Landovitz RJ, Lee SJ, Leibowitz AA. Motivators, concerns, and barriers to adoption of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among gay and bisexual men in HIV-serodiscordant male relationships. AIDS Care. 2011;23(9):1136–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schneider JA, Dandona R, Pasupneti S, Lakshmi V, Liao C, Yeldandi V, et al. Initial commitment to pre-exposure prophylaxis and circumcision for HIV prevention amongst Indian truck drivers. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(7):e11922.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gersh JK, Fiorillo SP, Burghardt L, Nichol AC, Thrun M, Campbell TB. Attitudes and barriers towards pre-exposure prophylaxis (Prep) among high-risk HIV-seronegative men who have sex with men. J AIDS Clin Res. 2014;5(335):2.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Golub SA, Kowalczyk W, Weinberger CL, Parsons JT. Preexposure prophylaxis and predicted condom use among high-risk men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (1999). 2010;54(5):548–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mustanski B, Johnson AK, Garofalo R, Ryan D, Birkett M. Perceived likelihood of using HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis medications among young men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(6):2173–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fisher JD, Amico KR, Fisher WA, Harman JJ. The information-motivation-behavioral skills model of antiretroviral adherence and its applications. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2008;5(4):193–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shrestha R, Huedo-Medina T, Altice F, Krishnan A, Copenhaver M. Examining the acceptability of mHealth technology in HIV prevention among high-risk drug users in treatment. AIDS Behav. 2016.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Shrestha R, Huedo-Medina T, Copenhaver M. Sex-related differences in self-reported neurocognitive impairment among high-risk cocaine users in methadone maintenance treatment program. Subst Abus. 2015;9:17–24.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shrestha R, Copenhaver M. The influence of neurocognitive impairment on HIV risk behaviors and intervention outcomes among high-risk substance users: a systematic review. Front Public Health. 2016;4:16.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shrestha R, Karki P, Huedo-Medina TB, Copenhaver M. Intent to use preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), HIV risk behaviors, and self-report neurocognitive symptoms by high-risk drug users: a mediation analysis. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2017;28(4):612–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Verdejo-Garcia A, Perez-Garcia M. Profile of executive deficits in cocaine and heroin polysubstance users: common and differential effects on separate executive components. Psychopharmacology. 2007;190(4):517–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Vo HT, Schacht R, Mintzer M, Fishman M. Working memory impairment in cannabis- and opioid-dependent adolescents. Subst Abus. 2014;35(4):387–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Anand P, Springer S, Copenhaver M, Altice F. Neurocognitive impairment and HIV risk factors: a reciprocal relationship. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(6):1213–26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Huedo-Medina TB, Shrestha R, Copenhaver M. Modeling a theory-based approach to examine the influence of neurocognitive impairment on HIV risk reduction behaviors among drug users in treatment. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(8):1646–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Van Damme L, Corneli A, Ahmed K, Agot K, Lombaard J, Kapiga S, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):411–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Shrestha R, Karki P, Huedo-Medina T, Copenhaver M. Treatment engagement moderates the effect of neurocognitive impairment on antiretroviral therapy adherence in HIV-infected drug users in treatment. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2016;28(1):85–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Landovitz RJ, Kofron R, McCauley M. The promise and pitfalls of long-acting injectable agents for HIV prevention. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2016;11(1):122–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Markowitz M, Frank I, Grant R, Mayer K, Margolis D, Hudson K, et al. ÉCLAIR: phase 2A safety and PK study of cabotegravir LA in HIV-uninfected men. In: Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2016. pp. 22–25.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Mack N, Odhiambo J, Wong CM, Agot K. Barriers and facilitators to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) eligibility screening and ongoing HIV testing among target populations in Bondo and Rarieda, Kenya: results of a consultation with community stakeholders. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Elwyn G, Frosch DL, Kobrin S. Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences. Implement Sci. 2016;11:114.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Van der Elst EM, Mbogua J, Operario D, Mutua G, Kuo C, Mugo P, et al. High acceptability of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis but challenges in adherence and use: qualitative insights from a phase I trial of intermittent and daily PrEP in at-risk populations in Kenya. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(6):2162–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sylla L, Bruce RD, Kamarulzaman A, Altice FL. Integration and co-location of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and drug treatment services. Int J Drug Policy. 2007;18(4):306–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    O’Connor PG, Shi JM, Henry S, Durante AJ, Friedman L, Selwyn PA. Tuberculosis chemoprophylaxis using a liquid isoniazid-methadone admixture for drug users in methadone maintenance. Addiction. 1999;94(7):1071–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Morozova O, Dvoryak S, Altice FL. Methadone treatment improves tuberculosis treatment among hospitalized opioid dependent patients in Ukraine. Int J Drug Policy. 2013;24(6):e91–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Batki SL, Gruber VA, Bradley JM, Bradley M, Delucchi K. A controlled trial of methadone treatment combined with directly observed isoniazid for tuberculosis prevention in injection drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002;66(3):283–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bruce RD, Eiserman J, Acosta A, Gote C, Lim JK, Altice FL. Developing a modified directly observed therapy intervention for hepatitis C treatment in a methadone maintenance program: implications for program replication. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2012;38(3):206–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Litwin AH, Harris KA, Nahvi S, Zamor PJ, Soloway IJ, Tenore PL, et al. Successful treatment of chronic hepatitis C with pegylated interferon in combination with ribavirin in a methadone maintenance treatment program. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2009;37(1):32–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Bachireddy C, Soule MC, Izenberg JM, Dvoryak S, Dumchev K, Altice FL. Integration of health services improves multiple healthcare outcomes among HIV-infected people who inject drugs in Ukraine. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;134:106–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Haddad MS, Zelenev A, Altice FL. Integrating buprenorphine maintenance therapy into federally qualified health centers: real-world substance abuse treatment outcomes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013;131(1–2):127–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Metsch LR, Feaster DJ, Gooden L, Matheson T, Mandler RN, Haynes L, et al. Implementing rapid HIV testing with or without risk-reduction counseling in drug treatment centers: results of a randomized trial. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(6):1160–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chadwick JJ, Andrade LF, Altice FL, Petry NM. Correlates of having never been HIV tested among entrants to substance abuse treatment clinics: empiric findings from real-world New England settings. J Psychoact Drugs. 2014;46(3):208–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hosek SG, Rudy B, Landovitz R, Kapogiannis B, Siberry G, Rutledge B, et al. An HIV preexposure prophylaxis demonstration project and safety study for young MSM. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017;74(1):21–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Cohen SE, Vittinghoff E, Bacon O, Doblecki-Lewis S, Postle BS, Feaster DJ, et al. High interest in preexposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men at risk for HIV infection: baseline data from the US PrEP demonstration project. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015;68(4):439–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Liu A, Cohen S, Follansbee S, Cohan D, Weber S, Sachdev D, et al. Early experiences implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention in San Francisco. PLoS Med. 2014;11(3):e1001613.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Liu AY, Cohen SE, Vittinghoff E, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for hiv infection integrated with municipal- and community-based sexual health services. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(1):75–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Shrestha R, Karki P, Altice FL, Huedo-Medina TB, Meyer JP, Madden L, et al. Correlates of willingness to initiate pre-exposure prophylaxis and anticipation of practicing safer drug- and sex-related behaviors among high-risk drug users on methadone treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;173:107–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Community Medicine & Health CareUniversity of Connecticut Health CenterFarmingtonUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention, and PolicyUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  3. 3.Department of Allied Health SciencesUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  4. 4.Department of Internal Medicine, AIDS ProgramYale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  5. 5.School of Public HealthLoma Linda UniversityLoma LindaUSA
  6. 6.Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Rheumatology, School of MedicineYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations