Medical Mistrust Among a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Sample of Sexual Minority Men.

Purpose: Medical mistrust is a barrier to health care utilization and is associated with suboptimal health outcomes. Research on mistrust among sexual minority men (SMM) is limited and largely focuses on Black SMM and HIV, with few studies assessing mistrust among SMM of other race/ethnicities. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in medical mistrust among SMM by race. Methods: From February 2018 to February 2019, a mixed-methods study examined the health-related beliefs and experiences of young SMM in New York City. The Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale (GBMMS) was used to measure medical mistrust related to race, and a modified version of the scale assessed mistrust related to one's "sexual/gender minority" status (Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale-Sexual/Gender Minority [GBMMS-SGM]). With an analytic sample of 183 cisgender SMM, a one-way multivariate analysis of variance was used to examine differences in GBMMS and GBMMS-SGM scores by race/ethnicity [Black, Latinx, White, "Another Racial Group(s)"]. Results: There were significantly different GBMMS scores by race, with participants of color reporting higher levels of race-based medical mistrust than White participants. This finding is supported by effect sizes ranging from moderate to large. Differences in GBMMS-SGM scores by race were borderline; however, the effect size for Black and White participants' GBMMS-SGM scores was moderate, indicating that higher GBMMS-SGM scores among Black participants is meaningful. Conclusion: Multilevel strategies should be used to earn the trust of minoritized populations, such as addressing both historical and ongoing discrimination, moving beyond implicit bias trainings, and strengthening the recruitment and retention of minoritized health care professionals.

Logistical Facilitators and Barriers to PrEP Implementation in Methadone Clinic Settings: Provider and Staff Perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of implementing pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a daily oral medication for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention, in methadone clinics. METHODS: Medical and nonmedical staff (n = 30) at 2 methadone clinics in Northern New Jersey were qualitatively interviewed about various aspects of substance use treatment, clinical operations, and HIV risk and prevention among their patient populations. Audio-recorded interviews were professionally transcribed, then coded and analyzed by the research team. RESULTS: Themes surrounding the viability of PrEP implementation emerged for both logistical facilitators and barriers. Facilitators included availability of prescribing clinicians, ability to conduct lab testing on-site, and availability of existing hepatitis C programs as a blueprint for PrEP management. Barriers included increased provider burden, financial concerns, and perceptions that PrEP provision is outside the clinic's treatment scope. CONCLUSIONS: Although staff expressed willingness and potential ability to provide PrEP, they identified barriers regarding insurance reimbursement, limited funding, and concerns that PrEP would extend the clinic's treatment scope. However, given the enabling factors such as availability of providers and existing clinical infrastructure, providing PrEP could increase clinic revenue through insurance reimbursement and federal funding for PrEP-related services. Clinic-level education is needed for clinical and nonclinical staff to better understand the logistics of implementing PrEP, particularly regarding prescribing practices, billing and insurance concerns, and the essential nature of HIV prevention as a critical component of substance use treatment.