Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Clinical round-up
  1. Sophie Herbert1,
  2. Emily Chung2
  1. 1 Department of Integrated Sexual Health, Ashwood Centre, Kettering, UK
  2. 2 Department of Sexual Health and HIV, Mortimer Market Centre, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sophie Herbert, Department of Integrated Sexual Health, Ashwood Centre, Kettering WC1E 6JB, UK; sophieherbert{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Preferences for mode of PrEP

As pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is becoming increasingly available, readers may find interest in this study by Greene et al.1 They asked 512 men who have sex with men (MSM) (mean age 22 years) about their preference for the mode of PrEP (were it available) and the use of one or more methods of PrEP. Of the preventative measures offered—condoms, daily oral PrEP, and long-acting PrEP delivered via either an injectable or one of two types of PrEP implants differing in visibility—90% consistently preferred one option when presented with a choice. The methods most frequently preferred when options were presented in pairs were condoms (33.8%), non-visible implants (21.5%) and oral PrEP (17.0%). When asked to choose the single best option overall, those choosing implants had the highest reported HIV risk. Daily oral pills (35.5%) and non-visible implants (34.3%) were most frequently chosen, followed by injections (25.2%) and visible implants (4.3%). Convenience, duration of protection and privacy were the most common reasons …

View Full Text


  • Handling editor Jackie A Cassell

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.