Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

PrEP Product Acceptability and Dual Process Decision-Making Among Men Who Have Sex with Men

  • The Science of Prevention (JD Stekler and JM Baeten, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current HIV/AIDS Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Advances in short- and long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) technologies have incentivized the need to understand how individuals make trade-offs and competing decisions regarding PrEP modalities. The purpose of this review was to examine how researchers have conceptualized and measured attributes that are either intuitive and emotional (System 1) or deliberative and cognitive (System 2) in conjoint analysis or discrete choice experiments focused on diverse PrEP technologies among men who have sex with men (MSM).

Recent Findings

Across the 9 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 5 included oral PrEP, 3 included topical rectal microbicides, 4 included PrEP injectables, and 1 study focused on an HIV prevention vaccine. Studies have not used uniform metrics, making comparisons difficult. Researchers measured attributes linked to System 2 processing (e.g., cost, efficacy), yet none examined System 1 processing.

Summary

There is not one product or attribute preferable to all groups. Prevention products will need to be developed and promoted to reflect that diversity. Given that PrEP technologies have been solely informed by System 2 attributes, efforts to integrate System 1 attributes into ongoing and future PrEP choice experiments are pivotal to advance PrEP acceptability research and interventions to support their implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Beymer MR, Holloway IW, Pulsipher C, Landovitz RJ. Current and future PrEP medications and modalities: on-demand, injectables, and topicals. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2019;16(4):349–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-019-00450-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nyaku AN, Kelly SG, Taiwo BO. Long-acting antiretrovirals: where are we now? Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2017;14(2):63–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-017-0353-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuehn B. PrEP disparities. JAMA. 2018;320(22):2304. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.18947.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Siegler AJ, Bratcher A, Weiss KM, Mouhanna F, Ahlschlager L, Sullivan PS. Location location location: an exploration of disparities in access to publicly listed pre-exposure prophylaxis clinics in the United States. Ann Epidemiol. 2018;28(12):858–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.05.006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Calabrese SK, Krakower DS, Mayer KH. Integrating HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) into routine preventive health care to avoid exacerbating disparities. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(12):1883–9. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304061.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Krakower DS, Jain S, Mayer KH. Antiretrovirals for primary HIV prevention: the current status of pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2015;12(1):127–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-014-0253-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Green PE, Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research. 1978;5(2). https://doi.org/10.1086/208721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rao VR. Applied conjoint analysis. New York: Springer; 2014.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Beusterien KM, Dziekan K, Flood E, Harding G, Jordan JC. Understanding patient preferences for HIV medications using adaptive conjoint analysis: feasibility assessment. Value Health. 2005;8(4):453–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00036.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hauber AB, Mohamed AF, Watson ME, Johnson FR, Hernandez JE. Benefits, risk, and uncertainty: preferences of antiretroviral-naive African Americans for HIV treatments. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2009;23(1):29–34. https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2008.0064.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stamos A, Bruyneel S, De Rock B, Cherchye L, Dewitte S. A dual-process model of decision-making: the symmetric effect of intuitive and cognitive judgments on optimal budget allocation. J Neurosci Psychol Econ. 2018;11(1):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/npe0000075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. • Diederich A, Trueblood JS. A dynamic dual process model of risky decision making. Psychol Rev. 2018;125(2):270–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000087 •This study examines competing dual-process models in its application to risky decision-making, including timing and interaction between the two systems.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stanovich KE, West RF. Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behav Brain Sci. 2001;23(5):645–65. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00003435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sloman SA. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(1):3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Evans JS, Stanovich KE. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. 2013;8(3):223–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Agarwal J, DeSarbo WS, Malhotra NK, Rao VR. An interdisciplinary review of research in conjoint analysis: recent developments and directions for future research. Cust Needs Solut. 2014;2(1):19–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-014-0029-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Baumeister RF, Clark CJ, Kim J, Lau S, Dahl D, Fischer E, et al. Consumers (and consumer researchers) need conscious thinking in addition to unconscious processes: a call for integrative models, a commentary on Williams and Poehlman. J Consum Res. 2017;44(2):252–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Poehlman TA, Williams LE. The case for considering consciousness second: response to Baumeister et al.; Plassmann and Mormann; and Sweldens, Tuk, and Hütter. J Consum Res. 2017;44(2):276–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028238.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Kinsler JJ, Cunningham WE, Nurena CR, Nadjat-Haiem C, Grinsztejn B, Casapia M, et al. Using conjoint analysis to measure the acceptability of rectal microbicides among men who have sex with men in four South American cities. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(6):1436–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-011-0045-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cameron MP, Newman PA, Roungprakhon S, Scarpa R. The marginal willingness-to-pay for attributes of a hypothetical HIV vaccine. Vaccine. 2013;31(36):3712–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2013.05.089.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054288.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Newman PA, Cameron MP, Roungprakhon S, Tepjan S, Scarpa R. Acceptability and preferences for hypothetical rectal microbicides among a community sample of young men who have sex with men and transgender women in Thailand: a discrete choice experiment. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(11):2588–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1258-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tang EC, Galea JT, Kinsler JJ, Gonzales P, Sobieszczyk ME, Sanchez J, et al. Using conjoint analysis to determine the impact of product and user characteristics on acceptability of rectal microbicides for HIV prevention among Peruvian men who have sex with men. Sex Transm Infect. 2016;92(3):200–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2015-052028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dubov A, Fraenkel L, Yorick R, Ogunbajo A, Altice FL. Strategies to implement pre-exposure prophylaxis with men who have sex with men in Ukraine. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(4):1100–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-017-1996-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Shrestha R, Karki P, Altice FL, Dubov O, Fraenkel L, Huedo-Medina T, et al. 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. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(4):1228–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-017-1851-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Dubov A, Ogunbajo A, Altice FL, Fraenkel L. Optimizing access to PrEP based on MSM preferences: results of a discrete choice experiment. AIDS Care. 2019;31(5):545–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2018.1557590.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McDonagh D, Bruseberg A, Haslam C. Visual product evaluation: exploring users’ emotional relationships with products. Appl Ergon. 2002;33(3):231–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-6870(02)00008-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. • Gomez A, Loar R, Kramer AE, Garnett GP. Reaching and targeting more effectively: the application of market segmentation to improve HIV prevention programmes. Journal of the international AIDS society. 2019;22(Suppl 4):e25318. https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25318This viewpoint paper highlights how findings from discrete choice experiments and conjoint analyses may inform the reach and scale-up of HIV provention programs using market segmentation.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Weinrib R, Minnis A, Agot K, Ahmed K, Owino F, Manenzhe K, et al. End-Users’ product preference across three multipurpose prevention technology delivery forms: baseline results from young women in Kenya and South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(1):133–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-017-1911-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. •• Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane database Syst rev. 2017;4:CD001431. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5This review offers a meta-synthesis of factors contributing to effective decision aids in clinical settings.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bristow CC, Kojima N, Lee SJ, Leon SR, Ramos LB, Konda KA, et al. HIV and syphilis testing preferences among men who have sex with men and among transgender women in Lima, Peru. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0206204. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Miners A, Nadarzynski T, Witzel C, Phillips AN, Cambiano V, Rodger AJ, et al. Preferences for HIV testing services among men who have sex with men in the UK: a discrete choice experiment. PLoS Med. 2019;16(4):e1002779. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002779.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. van Gelder MM, Bretveld RW, Roeleveld N. Web-based questionnaires: the future in epidemiology? Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(11):1292–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwq291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ladhari R, Souiden N, Dufour B. The role of emotions in utilitarian service settings: the effects of emotional satisfaction on product perception and behavioral intentions. J Retail Consum Serv. 2017;34:10–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. van Gelder J-L, de Vries RE, van der Pligt J. Evaluating a dual-process model of risk: affect and cognition as determinants of risky choice. J Behav Decis Mak. 2009;22(1):45–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Luce MF, Payne JW, Bettman JR. Emotional trade-off difficulty and choice. J Mark Res. 1999;36(2):143–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379903600201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was made possible through support by the Penn Center for AIDS Research (CFAR), an NIH-funded program (P30 AI 045008), and an NIAID-funded grant (1 U19 AI 120249).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, 418 Curie Blvd, Room 222L, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    José A. Bauermeister

  2. Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Julie S. Downs

  3. Division of Infectious Diseases, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

    Douglas S. Krakower

Authors
  1. José A. Bauermeister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie S. Downs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Douglas S. Krakower
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José A. Bauermeister.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the funding agencies.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on The Science of Prevention

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bauermeister, J.A., Downs, J.S. & Krakower, D.S. PrEP Product Acceptability and Dual Process Decision-Making Among Men Who Have Sex with Men. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 17, 161–170 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-020-00497-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-020-00497-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation