Essay Sample on Exploring PrEP Access for Women to Reduce US HIV Infection Rates

Introduction

The subject of this article is to explore how Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP), as a highly effective HIV prevention method, can be better used to control the rate of HIV infection among women in the United States. This is achieved by exploring the barriers to access PrEP services. The authors review previous research and offer insights based on their findings regarding PrEP's potential in reducing the rate of HIV infection among women. While the article produces significant results concerning the use of PrEP in controlling HIV among black women, limitations regarding the generalizability of the findings presented in specific parts of the US cannot be ignored.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Significant Findings in the Article

Right from the onset of the introduction, Aaron et al. (2018) do a great job in defining the research problem. The researchers review literature indicating that black/African American women in the United States have a higher risk of contracting HIV compared to their white/Hispanic counterparts. Despite the increased exposure, the researchers observe that only 14 percent of women access PrEP drugs with a paltry 17 percent of this number being black/ African American. It has also been indicated that North-eastern parts of the United States account for the majority of new PrEP drugs prescriptions, suggesting inadequacy in Southern parts of the country. The statements given create a knowledge gap that needs to be explored to provide a new understanding of the most effective methods of reducing HIV rates incidence rates among African American women in these areas. This way, the researchers succeed in identifying the purpose of their investigation; thus the study meets the standard expectations of scientific research. Without highlighting the purpose, the readers cannot know the motivation for the study and, therefore, Aaron and colleagues have done an excellent job in avoiding this anomaly.

Aaron and colleagues have stated with clarity the methodology that was used to carry out the study. The researchers reviewed previous literature on the use of PrEP and women published between 2010 and 2017. Two independent scientists from CDC were contracted to review and remove those articles that did not contain data as well as those that were not published in English. Further screening was done to remove articles that lacked new data about oral PrEP. Another screening was done to select those that related to HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Literature reviews of previous publication with the view of increasing understanding a given phenomenon is done by designing a methodology that allows access to the most relevant to the area of inquiry. Researchers' selection articles published between 2010 and 2017 means that the study examined the latest information about the use of PrEP drugs. This ensured that only up-to-date data was examined. Employing independent scientists ensured that bias on the part of the researchers concerning what articles to include was eliminated. Narrowing of publications that addressed oral use of PrEP drugs and HIV and STIs ensured that most relevant information was analyzed. The highlighted criteria were critical because they made the study's methodology reliable and valid. For results of a study to be believed, reliability and validity of the approach to the study are investable, and Aaron and colleagues have succeeded in this respect.

The results of the literature review show that one category of factors identified from the publications as determining PrEP access is individual and systemic barriers influencing the uptake of PrEP services in women. Personal barriers are stated as barriers that influence decision making on the use of PrEP. They include perception of risk for HIV acquisition, peers and level of information while systemic factors relate to poverty racism and inadequate access to medical services among women. These factors associated with the purpose of the study. By identifying these factors, it can be helpful for stakeholders to address the problem of inadequate access to PrEP services among women. This is backed up by the discussion which explores how the access factors can be used to inform interventions that seek to address the problem of inadequate access to PrEP among black women in the United States. The results and discussion are in line with the purpose of the study which sought to increase access to PrEP among. The findings can be used to generalize about the appropriate measures need to enhance PrEP access among black women in the. However, it remains unclear as to whether the findings can generalized for black women in the Southern parts of the United States because systemic factors may be different from what has been reviewed and little is covered about PrEP access for black women in the South. This creates a weakness in the sense the research objective is not adequately met.

Agreement/Disagreement

Overall, I agree with the findings of Aaron and colleagues that access to PrEP is a significant health issue among African American women in the United States. The researchers conclude that understanding the barriers that prevent women from accessing PrEP services and factors that expose black women to the risk of HIV infection is crucial to the institution of intervention measures that would address the issue adequately. This conclusion can be generalized even to the entire population of women. These recommendations have been corroborated elsewhere in clinical literature. For this reason, I find the authors' position valuable in that it contributes positively to the development of knowledge on the whole issue of HIV infections control among black women in the United States.

References

Aaron, E., Blum, C., Seidman, D., Hoyt, M. J., Simone, J., Sullivan, M., & Smith, D. K. (2018). Optimizing delivery of HIV preexposure prophylaxis for women in the United States. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 32(1), 16-23. doi:10.1089/apc.2017.0201