Sexual assault is an irrefutable trauma; an insult to the autonomy of the person forced into sexual acts. Sexual assault sequelae range from physical injury and acute traumatic stress, to pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (HIV PEP) following sexual assault may decrease the likelihood of HIV transmission. Many patients seeking healthcare post-sexual assault either do not initiate HIV PEP or do not complete the 28-day medication regimen. In this qualitative interpretive description, we interviewed sexual assault patients (N=11) about HIV PEP discussions/reactions, attitudes and understanding related to HIV and PEP, and barriers and facilitators of HIV PEP acceptance and adherence. Participants described a process of losing and reclaiming control throughout post-assault care and follow-up; and how this affected HIV PEP-related decision-making. Most HIV PEP decisions were described as a process of reclaiming control over one outcome while simultaneously losing control of another.

Nonoccupational, postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is offered inconsistently to patients who have been sexually assaulted. This may be due to Forensic Nurse Examiner (FNE) programs utilizing diverse nPEP protocols and HIV risk assessment algorithms. This study examines factors associated with FNEs offering nPEP to patients following sexual assault at two FNE programs in urban settings. Offering nPEP is mostly driven by site-specific protocol. At Site 1, in addition to open anal or open genital wounds, the presence of injury to the head or face was associated with FNEs offering nPEP (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 64.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [2.12, 1942.37]). At Site 2, patients assaulted by someone of Other race/ethnicity (non-White, non-African American) were 86% less likely to be offered nPEP (AOR 0.14, 95% CI = [.03, .72]) than patients assaulted by Whites. In addition to following site-specific protocols, future research should further explore the mechanisms influencing clinician decision making.

This cross-sectional study describes sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE)/forensic nurse examiner (FNE) program practices related to HIV testing, nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP), and common barriers to offering HIV testing and nPEP. A convenience sample of 174 SANE/FNE programs in the United States and Canada was drawn from the International Association of Forensic Nurses database, and program coordinators completed Web-based surveys. Three fourths of programs had nPEP policies, 31% provided HIV testing, and 63% offered nPEP routinely or upon request. Using χ(2) and Fisher's exact tests, a greater proportion of Canadian programs had an nPEP protocol (p = .010), provided HIV testing (p = .004), and offered nPEP (p = .0001) than U.S.-based programs. Program coordinators rated providing pre- and/or posttest counseling and follow-up as the most important barrier to HIV testing, and medication costs as the most important barrier to providing nPEP. Our results indicate HIV-related services are offered inconsistently across SANE/FNE programs.

Background

Nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP) for HIV following sexual assault may decrease the likelihood of HIV transmission.

Objective

The purpose of this exploratory chart review study was to examine factors associated with patients accepting post-sexual assault nPEP at three forensic nurse examiner programs in urban settings.

Methods

Forensic nursing charts of patients presenting for acute sexual assault care were reviewed as part of a mixed-methods study.

Results

Patients assaulted by more than one or an unknown number of assailants were over 12 times more likely to accept the offer of nPEP (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 12.66, 95% CI [2.77, 57.82]). In cases where no condom was used (aOR = 8.57, 95% CI [1.59, 46.10]) or when any injury to the anus or genitalia was noted (aOR = 4.10, 95% CI [1.57, 10.75]), patients were more likely to accept nPEP. Patients with any injury to the face or head were less likely to initiate nPEP (aOR = 0.32, 95% CI [0.11, 0.97]).

Discussion

This study is an important first step in understanding factors associated with nPEP acceptance after sexual assault.