Gay and bisexual men have differing attitudes towards men who are using pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), according to US research published in Sociology of Health & Illness. A series of focus groups conducted in New York City showed that some men regarded PrEP users as irresponsible, naĆÆve, vectors of disease and a social problem. In contrast, other men articulated PrEP as a beneficial new option for preventing the spread of HIV, and also had a nuanced view about the effectiveness of condom-based prevention campaigns and the epidemiology of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among gay and bisexual men.
āBy framing PrEP use as enabling gay and bisexual men to violate subcultural norms of sexual etiquette espoused in previous HIV prevention efforts, claims makers were able to present PrEP users as social problem villains,ā write the authors. āCountering claims makersā framing PrEP as a social problem, some men constructed PrEP as a helpful prevention tool in the fight against the HIV epidemic within gay an bisexual communities. Much of their discourse was couched within a harm reduction model in which PrEP medication is framed as significantly reducing the harm associated with engaging in risky sexual behavior.ā
The use of emtricitabine/tenofovir (Truvada) as PrEPĀ was approved in the US in 2012. Studies have shown that, with good adherence, this treatment can reduce the risk of infection with HIV by over 90%.
An estimated 25% of HIV-negative gay and bisexual men in the US would benefit from PrEP. However, uptake of the therapy has faced significant barriers, including knowledge, access and affordability. Moreover, the integration of PrEP within existing HIV prevention efforts based on behaviour change ā especially consistent condom use ā has encountered some moral challenges, much of which is related to the stigma associated with sexual promiscuity and ābarebackā sex (unprotected anal intercourse with a non-primary partner).
Investigators from the City University New York wanted to make sense of the moral debate surrounding PrEP among gay and bisexual men, especially the extent to which the therapy has been constructed as a social problem. They designed a study based on five focus groups, in which gay and bisexual men were invited to share their views about PrEP. The focus groups were held in late 2015 and early 2016 and a total of 32 sexually active gay and bisexual men participated. PrEP was not mentioned in recruitment advertising as the investigators wished to avoid only attracting men with very strong opinions about the therapy. An investigator led discussion and the sessions lasted approximately 45 minutes.
Participants had an average age of 35 years. Most (n= 28) self-identified as gay and eleven were HIV-positive.
Overall, the men had a good awareness of PrEP. Many reported seeing adverts, mention of the therapy on social media or said they had heard of PrEP from friends.
However, not all the participants discussed PrEP accurately. One participant believed that it was a lifetime commitment, while another believed that if you stopped taking PrEP and subsequently became infected with HIV the virus would be resistant to antiretrovirals because of previous exposure to medication.
Some of the men constructed PrEP users as a social problem: promiscuous, irresponsible, immoral and naĆÆve. By and large, these individuals believed that uptake of PrEP was undermining use of condoms and that PrEP users were responsible for ongoing epidemics of STIs among gay and bisexual men. āItās just giving people a free pass. Thatās how they take PrEP,ā said one individual, another commenting, āAnd they think they can run to the clinic to go get that short [of antibiotics].ā
PrEP users were framed as irresponsible ābarebackers,ā with some participants expressing moral indignation at the perceived sexual irresponsibility of PrEP users, who they characterised as licentious, irresponsible and vectors of disease.
āItās kind of given people a license not to protect themselves,ā said one man, ānow I can just take this magical pill and Iām gonna be alright.ā Another individual commented: āMost of the people I know that are on PrEP they forget that there are a lot of STDs out there, and thatās the biggest mistake.ā
There were also clear notions of ādeservingā and āundeservingā PrEP users. Men in relationships with an HIV-positive partner fell into the former category. In contrast, concern was expressed about the use of PrEP by younger gay and bisexual men. Some participants believed that younger men seeking PrEP should ābe educated thoroughly,ā that there āshould be mental health screeningā and that āit has to be made harder to get the pill.ā
Despite this, some men viewed PrEP as a beneficial new option for preventing the spread of HIV. Ā Their attitude was pragmatic. āI think itās bad to judgmental,ā said one man, āI think itās a great method just to prevent the disease.ā
It was also pointed out that moral judgments about PrEP and its users erected unnecessary barriers to the control of the HIV epidemic. Some men specifically highlighted that condom-based behaviour change HIV prevention campaigns had failed to halt the continued spread of HIV among gay and bisexual men.
The role of PrEP in the epidemiology of STIs was also questioned, with one man noting there was a well-established syphilis outbreak among gay and bisexual men years before PrEP was approved.
āBy studying the construction of PrEP as a social problem, we were able to highlight how gay and bisexual men define what they consider appropriate ways to prevent the spread of HIV,ā conclude the authors. āPublic health organisations that design and disseminate HIV prevention messaging should strive to construct more inclusive definitions of sexual health practices in ways that seek to combat the stigma currently associated with those who make use of other preventions methods besides condoms.ā
By Michael Carter
Pawson M et al. āItās just an excuse to slut aroundā: gay and bisexual mensā construction of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as a social problem. Sociology of Health & Illness, online edition, doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12765, 2018.