Is non-occupational HIV Post Exposure Prophylaxis (nPEP) still used? An exploration of nPEP use since widespread availability of HIV PrEP.

BACKGROUND: Non-occupational Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (nPEP) is an effective HIV prevention strategy in gay and bisexual men (GBM) taken after possible exposure. HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) is also a highly effective HIV prevention strategy. METHODS: A retrospective audit of medical records of GBM presenting to a sexual health centre and provided with nPEP compared two periods to determine if nPEP usage changed following availability of PrEP. In the first period (P1) PrEP was available through extended trials. In the second period (P2) PrEP became more accessible through the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Period comparisons were performed using a two-population test of proportions with one-tailed testing and significance set at P < .05 using SPSS Statistics Version 25. RESULTS: There were 232 GBM provided with nPEP in P1, and 202 in P2. A two-population test of proportions demonstrated that GBM presentations for nPEP decreased significantly from 302/4779 (6.3%) of GBM visits in P1 to 221/7205 (3.1%) in P2 when PrEP was more accessible (Z=8.53, P < .001). PrEP uptake after presenting for nPEP increased from 30 (12.9%) of total GBM visits in P1 to 69 (34.2%) in P2 (Z=5.26, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: GBM accessing nPEP decreased with statistical significance post introduction of PBS PrEP.

'Show me the money': financial incentives increase chlamydia screening rates among tertiary students: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesise that text-messaging and financial incentives would increase tertiary student participation in chlamydia screening. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted over two phases on eight tertiary campuses during 2007. During Phase 1 (6 months) study activities were advertised through student organisations and media. Education and screening were offered during a range of student activities. During Phase 2 (4 days) education and screening were offered via text messages. Non-financial incentives were offered during Phase 1 and a $10 cash incentive was offered during Phase 2. Rates of specimens provided by students and the direct costs incurred during each phase were compared. RESULTS: 2786 students attended the 31 activities conducted in Phase 1. Of these, 627 students (22.5%) provided urine specimens for chlamydia testing. During Phase 2, the dissemination of 866 text messages resulted in urine specimens from 392 students (45.3%). Costs per test were AUD $175.11 in Phase 1 and AUD $27.13 in Phase 2. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with more labour intensive (and therefore more expensive) screening activities conducted over a 6-month period, offering a small financial incentive to tertiary students through text messaging over a 4-day period significantly increased participation in on-campus chlamydia screening. This model could readily be applied to other populations to increase participation in chlamydia screening.