Introduction

HIV prevention during pregnancy and lactation is critical for both maternal and child health. Pregnancy provides a critical opportunity for clinicians to elicit women's vulnerabilities to HIV and offer HIV testing, treatment and referral and/or comprehensive HIV prevention options for the current pregnancy, the postpartum period and safer conception options for future pregnancies. In this commentary, we review the safety of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis with tenofovir/emtricitabine in pregnant and lactating women and suggest opportunities to identify pregnant and postpartum women at substantial risk of HIV. We then describe a clinical approach to caring for women who both choose and decline pre-exposure prophylaxis during pregnancy and postpartum, highlighting areas for future research.

Discussion

Evidence suggests that pre-exposure prophylaxis with tenofovir/emtricitabine is safe in pregnancy and lactation. Identifying women vulnerable to HIV and eligible for pre-exposure prophylaxis is challenging in light of the myriad of individual, community, and structural forces impacting HIV acquisition. Validated risk calculators exist for specific populations but have not been used to screen and offer HIV prevention methods. Partner testing and engagement of men living with HIV are additional means of reaching at-risk women. However, women's vulnerabilities to HIV change over time. Combining screening for HIV vulnerability with HIV and/or STI testing at standard intervals during pregnancy is a practical way to prompt providers to incorporate HIV screening and prevention counselling. We suggest using shared decision-making to offer women pre-exposure prophylaxis as one of multiple HIV prevention strategies during pregnancy and postpartum, facilitating open conversations about HIV vulnerabilities, preferences about HIV prevention strategies, and choosing a method that best meets the needs of each woman.

Conclusion

Growing evidence suggests that pre-exposure prophylaxis with tenofovir/emtricitabine during pregnancy and lactation is safe and effective. Shared decision-making provides one approach to identify at-risk women and offers pre-exposure prophylaxis but requires implementation research in diverse clinical settings. Including pregnant and breastfeeding women in future HIV prevention research is critical for the creation of evidence-driven public health policies and clinical guidelines.

Transgender women share more in common with cisgender women, with respect to sociocultural context and factors influencing HIV risk and outcomes, than they do with "men who have sex with men", a behavioral risk category in which they often are included. However, it is not yet clear whether both transgender and cisgender women would find integrated, all-women HIV programs and services desirable and beneficial. We Are All Women was a qualitative study conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area from April 2016 to January 2017, using a conceptual framework based on gender affirmation and trauma-informed care, to explore barriers and facilitators to inclusion of transgender women in HIV treatment and support services traditionally focused on cisgender women. Thirty-eight women (10 trans, 25 cis, and 3 "other" gender) participated in six semistructured, facilitated focus groups. In addition, five HIV care providers participated in semistructured, in-depth interviews. Both trans and cis women identified the desire for gender affirmation, a feeling of safety (specifically space without men), and potential community building within a care and healing context as powerful facilitators of an inclusive all-women care environment. At the same time, they recognized that tensions do exist between idealized visions of such an environment, deep-seated sentiments and behaviors among some cis women toward trans women, and the practical realities of creating the optimal spaces for all women. Opportunities for dialog between trans and cis women to mitigate gender-associated phobias and misperceptions are a valuable first step in creating HIV care environments that serve all women.

Background

Cisgender women in the United States use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention at lower rates relative to other groups. Advocacy groups and patients identify family planning clinics as the preferred sites to lead PrEP implementation for women in the United States. However, limited qualitative exploration exists of U.S. family planning practitioners' attitudes toward integrating PrEP into their work.

Methods

We conducted qualitative focus groups with a convenience sample of family planning clinicians, counselors, and clinic managers to explore barriers and facilitators to PrEP provision in U.S. family planning clinics.

Results

We conducted six focus groups (total participants = 37) with respondents who worked in family planning clinics in San Francisco, California; Kansas City, Missouri; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Key themes emerged highlighting how PrEP at times runs contrary to other family planning agendas, including efficient clinic visits, condom promotion, and long-acting reversible contraception counseling. Throughout these discussions, participants expressed discomfort with HIV vulnerabilities rooted in social and structural determinants of health.

Conclusions

Findings suggest that those seeking to implement PrEP for U.S. cisgender women may benefit from exploring 1) how to integrate patient/provider conversations about the structural determinants of health and their relationship to HIV and other sexual and reproductive health outcomes and 2) how to foster person-centered prevention conversations in the context of busy family planning visits.

Introduction

Transgender (trans) women in the United States have disproportionately high rates of HIV acquisition, yet there remains a dearth of culturally appropriate and gender affirming HIV care services for them. Trans women often are aggregated with men who have sex with men based on biological essentialism and behaviorally defined characteristics, even though they have more in common with cisgender (cis) women, such as gender identity and psychosocial factors that influence HIV risk. As a result, trans women often are rendered invisible and underserved in the HIV response. We explore the feasibility of constructing inclusive, all-women HIV care environments as a way to redress the dearth of appropriate services for trans women living with HIV and to affirm their gender identity as women.

Methods

Thirty-eight women living with HIV and five providers participated in a qualitative focus group and interview study between April 2016 and January 2017, exploring the desirability and practicality of including trans women in HIV treatment and support services traditionally focused on cis women. Transcripts were coded and template analysis was employed to discern key themes.

Results

Participants identified concrete strategies for implementation of inclusive, all-women HIV care related to representation and visibility of trans women, community input, education and training, aspects of the clinic environment, and flexibility and creativity. The impact of trauma and the need for safety and gender affirmation were emphasized throughout.

Conclusions

Trans and cis women found the idea of inclusive, all-women's HIV care environments attractive and feasible, notwithstanding cultural and structural challenges to creating them.

Purpose: Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people-including members of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer communities-remain underrepresented in health research due to poor collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data. We sought to understand the contextual factors affecting how SGM research participants interact with SOGI questions to enhance participant experience and increase the accuracy and sensitivity of research findings. Methods: We recruited SGM adults for in-person semi-structured focus groups or online cognitive interviews from 2016 to 2018. During focus groups and cognitive interviews, we asked participants to respond to SOGI question sets. We employed template analysis to describe the contextual factors that affected SGM participants' responses to SOGI questions. Results: We had a total of 74 participants, including 55 participants organized into nine focus groups and 19 participants in cognitive interviews. Most self-identified as a sexual minority person (88%), and 51% identified as a gender minority person. Two main themes were: (1) the need to know the relevance (of why SOGI questions are asked) and (2) the importance of environmental and contextual cues (communicating physical safety and freedom from discrimination that influenced SOGI disclosure). Conclusions: Contextualizing the relevance of SOGI data sought could help improve the accuracy and sensitivity of data collection efforts. Environmental cues that communicate acceptance and safety for SGM individuals in research settings may support disclosure. Researchers should consider these contextual factors when designing future studies to improve research experiences for SGM individuals and increase the likelihood of future participation.

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people-including members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer communities-are understudied and underrepresented in research. Current sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) questions do not sufficiently engage SGM people, and there is a critical gap in understanding how SOGI questions reduce inclusion and accurate empirical representation. We conducted a qualitative study to answer the question, "For SGM people, what are the major limitations with current SOGI questions?" Focus groups probed reactions to SOGI questions adapted from prior national surveys and clinical best practice guidelines. Questions were refined and presented in semi-structured cognitive interviews. Template analysis using a priori themes guided analysis. There were 74 participants: 55 in nine focus groups and 19 in cognitive interviews. Participants were diverse: 51.3% identified as gender minorities, 87.8% as sexual minorities, 8.1% as Hispanic/Latinx, 13.5% as Black or African-American, and 43.2% as Non-white. Two major themes emerged: (1) SOGI questions did not allow for identity fluidity and complexity, reducing inclusion and representation, and (2) SOGI question stems and answer choices were often not clear as to which SOGI dimension was being assessed. To our knowledge, this represents the largest body of qualitative data studying SGM perspectives when responding to SOGI questions. We present recommendations for future development and use of SOGI measures. Attention to these topics may improve meaningful participation of SGM people in research and implementation of such research within and for SGM communities.