Preferences for Injectable PrEP Among Young U.S. Cisgender Men and Transgender Women and Men Who Have Sex with Men

Background Focus group studies are increasingly published in health related journals, but we know little about how researchers use this method, particularly how they determine the number of focus groups to conduct. The methodological literature commonly advises researchers to follow principles of data saturation, although practical advise on how to do this is lacking. Our objectives were firstly, to describe the current status of sample size in focus group studies reported in health journals. Secondly, to assess whether and how researchers explain the number of focus groups they carry out. Methods We searched PubMed for studies that had used focus groups and that had been published in open access journals during 2008, and extracted data on the number of focus groups and on any explanation authors gave for this number. We also did a qualitative assessment of the papers with regard to how number of groups was explained and discussed. Results We identified 220 papers published in 117 journals. In these papers insufficient reporting of sample sizes was common. The number of focus groups conducted varied greatly (mean 8.4, median 5, range 1 to 96). Thirty seven (17%) studies attempted to explain the number of groups. Six studies referred to rules of thumb in the literature, three stated that they were unable to organize more groups for practical reasons, while 28 studies stated that they had reached a point of saturation. Among those stating that they had reached a point of saturation, several appeared not to have followed principles from grounded theory where data collection and analysis is an iterative process until saturation is reached. Studies with high numbers of focus groups did not offer explanations for number of groups. Too much data as a study weakness was not an issue discussed in any of the reviewed papers. Conclusions Based on these findings we suggest that journals adopt more stringent requirements for focus group method reporting. The often poor and inconsistent reporting seen in these studies may also reflect the lack of clear, evidence-based guidance about deciding on sample size. More empirical research is needed to develop focus group methodology.

This study examined potential facilitators and barriers to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use and their association with PrEP acceptability and motivations for adherence among 184 MSM and transgender women living in New York City. Participants were presented with educational information about PrEP and completed a computerized survey. Overall, 55.4% of participants reported willingness to take PrEP. The most highly endorsed barriers to PrEP use were health concerns, including both long-term impacts and short-term side effects, questions about PrEP's impact on future drug resistance, and concerns that PrEP does not provide complete protection against HIV. The most highly endorsed facilitator was free access to PrEP, followed by access to support services such as regular HIV testing, sexual health care/monitoring, and access to one-on-one counseling. Participants of color rated both barriers and facilitators as more important than their White counterparts. In multivariate models, barrier and facilitator scores significantly predicted not only PrEP acceptability, but also motivation for PrEP adherence among those who were likely to use PrEP. PrEP implementation programs should consider addressing these barriers and facilitators in protocol and policy development. Findings underscore the importance of support services, such as sexual health counseling, to the success of PrEP as a prevention strategy.