Skip to main content

Table 4 Populations who would benefit from PrEP, Healthcare Services that should offer PrEP, and Reasons PrEP should not be offered according to HIV physicians from Brazil and Mexico, 2020

From: Awareness, knowledge, and attitudes related to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and other prevention strategies among physicians from Brazil and Mexico: cross-sectional web-based survey

  Total Brazil Mexico P valuea
(N = 481)
n (%)
(N = 339; 70.5%)
n (%)
(N = 142; 29.5%)
n (%)
 
Populations who would benefit from PrEP (yes)
 Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) 426 (88.6) 305 (90) 121 (85.2) .13
 Sex workers 422 (87.7) 327 (96.5) 95 (66.9) <.001
 Transgender people 388 (80.7) 286 (84.4) 102 (71.8) .001
 Partners in a sero-discordant relationship 363 (75.5) 271 (79.9) 92 (64.8) <.001
 Injectable drug users 291 (60.5) 227 (67.0) 64 (45.1) <.001
 Young adults or adolescents 228 (47.4) 157 (46.3) 71 (50) .46
 Non-injectable drug users 188 (36.1) 150 (44.2) 38 (26.8) <.001
Healthcare services that should offer PrEP (yes)
 HIV/STI clinics 395 (82.1) 270 (79.7) 125 (88) .03
 Specialized clinics 341 (70.9) 271 (79.9) 70 (49.3) <.001
 Family clinics 191 (39.7) 143 (42.2) 48 (33.8) .09
 Private clinics/hospitals 178 (37) 137 (40.4) 41 (28.9) .02
 Primary care 172 (35.8) 124 (36.6) 48 (33.8) .56
Reasons PrEP should not be offered (yes)
 “Behavioral interventions should be prioritized instead of PrEP” 261 (54.3) 148 (43.7) 113 (79.6) <.001
 “Public PrEP will reduce the budget for antiretroviral treatment” 202 (42) 120 (35.4) 82 (57.8) <.001
 “I think PrEP should not be provided by public services” 49 (10.2) 26 (7.7) 23 (16.2) <.01
 “Low number of PrEP users to maintain PrEP as public policy” 43 (8.9) 15 (4.4) 28 (19.7) <.001
  1. aChi-square test