A qualitative study identifying implementation strategies using the i-PARIHS framework to increase access to pre-exposure prophylaxis at federally qualified health centers in Mississippi

• Published in: Implementation science communications Vol. 5; no. 1; pp. 92 - 16
• Main Authors: Arnold, Trisha, Whiteley, Laura, Giorlando, Kayla K, Barnett, Andrew P, Albanese, Ariana M, Leigland, Avery, Sims-Gomillia, Courtney, Elwy, A Rani, Edet, Precious Patrick, Lewis, Demetra M, Brock, James B, Brown, Larry K
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central 28.08.2024; BMC
• Subjects: HIV Prevention; Implementation Science; Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP); Telemedicine; Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP); HIV Prevention; Telemedicine; Implementation Science
• ISSN: 2662-2211; 2662-2211
• DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00632-6

Mississippi (MS) experiences disproportionally high rates of new HIV infections and limited availability of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) are poised to increase access to PrEP. However, little is known about the implementation strategies needed to successfully integrate PrEP services into FQHCs in MS. The study had two objectives: identify barriers and facilitators to PrEP use and to develop tailored implementation strategies for FQHCs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 staff and 17 PrEP-eligible patients in MS FQHCs between April 2021 and March 2022. The interview was guided by the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework which covered PrEP facilitators and barriers. Interviews were coded according to the i-PARIHS domains of context, innovation, and recipients, followed by thematic analysis of these codes. Identified implementation strategies were presented to 9 FQHC staff for feedback. Data suggested that PrEP use at FQHCs is influenced by patient and clinic staff knowledge with higher levels of knowledge reflecting more PrEP use. Perceived side effects are the most significant barrier to PrEP use for patients, but participants also identified several other barriers including low HIV risk perception and untrained providers. Despite these barriers, patients also expressed a strong motivation to protect themselves, their partners, and their communities from HIV. Implementation strategies included education and provider training which were perceived as acceptable and appropriate. Though patients are motivated to increase protection against HIV, multiple barriers threaten uptake of PrEP within FQHCs in MS. Educating patients and providers, as well as training providers, are promising implementation strategies to overcome these barriers.