Perceptions and Acceptance of a Prophylactic Vaccine for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV): A Qualitative Study
Natalie V J Aldhouse,Eric K H Chan,Tamara Al-Zubeidi,Stephanie McKee,Valérie Oriol Mathieu,Antoine C El Khoury,Helen Kitchen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-024-00686-7
Patient
Abstract:Background: Despite advances in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention methods, such as the advent of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the number of people with newly acquired HIV remains high, particularly in at-risk groups. A prophylactic HIV vaccine could contribute to reduced disease prevalence and future transmission and address limitations of existing options, such as suboptimal long-term adherence to PrEPs. Methods: This qualitative study aimed to capture perceptions towards and acceptance of prophylactic HIV vaccination in three adult populations in the United States: the general population, 'at-risk' individuals (e.g. men who have sex with men, transgender individuals, gender-nonconforming individuals, and individuals in a sexual relationship with a person living with HIV), and parents/caregivers of children aged 9-17 years. Interviews were conducted with 55 participants to explore key drivers and barriers to HIV vaccine uptake, and a conceptual model was developed. Results: The sample was diverse; participants were 51% female, aged 20-57 years (mean 37 years), 33% with high school diploma as highest education level, and identified as White (42%), Black or African American (35%), of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (22%), or other races/ethnicities (8%) [groupings are not mutually exclusive]. Perceptions were influenced by individual, interpersonal, community, institutional, and structural factors. Overall, 98% of participants thought vaccination would be beneficial in preventing HIV. Key considerations/barriers included perceived susceptibility, i.e. whether participants felt there was a risk of contracting HIV (discussed by 90%); the clinical profile of the vaccine (e.g. the adverse effect profile [98%], and vaccine efficacy [85%], cost [73%] and administration schedule [88%]); and concerns around potential vaccine-induced seropositivity (VISP; 62%). Stigma was not found to be an important barrier, with a general view that vaccination status was personal. Participants in the 'at-risk' group were the most likely to accept an HIV vaccine (70%). Unique concerns in the subgroups included how a potential vaccine's clinical profile compared with PrEP, voiced by those receiving/considering PrEP, and considerations of children's views on the topic, voiced by parents/caregivers. Conclusions: Understanding these factors could help develop HIV vaccine research strategies and contribute toward public health messaging to support future HIV vaccination programs.