PrEP Acceptability (Appeal, Fit, Ease)

Diverging bar chart showing responses to PrEP acceptability items measuring appeal, fit, and ease of use. Bars to the right indicate agreement, while bars to the left indicate disagreement. Higher acceptability suggests fewer attitudinal barriers to PrEP uptake. How to read: Bars extending right of zero indicate agreement; bars extending left indicate disagreement. Longer bars mean a higher percentage of respondents.

PrEP Stigma Items

Responses to PrEP-related stigma statements. Stigma around PrEP use can deter individuals from seeking or maintaining treatment, even when they are aware of its benefits. How to read: Bars extending right of zero indicate agreement; bars extending left indicate disagreement. Longer bars mean a higher percentage of respondents.

PrEP Social Norms

Perceived social norms around PrEP use. Social norms reflect how respondents believe their peers and community view PrEP, which can strongly influence individual behavior. How to read: Bars extending right of zero indicate agreement; bars extending left indicate disagreement. Longer bars mean a higher percentage of respondents.

Key Finding: PrEP acceptability is moderate (mean 3.36 out of 5), with 60% of respondents agreeing that PrEP is easy to use. However, perceived social norms around PrEP remain low (mean 2.46/5), suggesting that community-level PrEP conversations are uncommon. Anticipatory stigma scores averaged 2.62/5, indicating moderate concern about judgment for using PrEP.

Score Distributions

AAF Composite Score

Distribution of the composite Acceptability (Appeal, Fit, Ease) score. Higher scores indicate more favorable attitudes toward PrEP.

Stigma Score

Distribution of the PrEP stigma composite score. Higher scores reflect greater perceived stigma associated with PrEP use.

Norms Score

Distribution of the social norms composite score. Higher scores indicate stronger perceived social support for PrEP use.

Scores by Demographics

AAF Score by Race

Box plot comparing PrEP acceptability scores across racial/ethnic groups. The box shows the interquartile range and the line marks the median.

AAF Score by Gender

PrEP acceptability score distribution by gender identity. Differences may reflect varying levels of perceived relevance and fit of PrEP across gender groups.

Stigma Score by Race

PrEP stigma scores by race/ethnicity. Elevated stigma in certain groups may indicate the need for culturally tailored destigmatization efforts.

Stigma Score by Income

PrEP stigma across income categories. Economic vulnerability may intersect with stigma to create compounding barriers to PrEP access.

Stigma Score by Gender

PrEP stigma compared by gender identity. Gender-specific stigma patterns can inform targeted communication strategies.

AAF Score by Income

PrEP acceptability by income level. Income-related differences in acceptability may reflect concerns about cost, access, and perceived need.

Norms Score by Race

Social norms scores by race/ethnicity. Community-level norms around PrEP can differ based on cultural context and community health messaging.

Norms Score by Gender

Social norms scores by gender identity. Perceived peer support for PrEP can vary across gender groups and influence willingness to initiate PrEP.

Key Finding: Transgender women report the highest PrEP acceptability (mean 3.70/5), while cisgender women report the lowest (3.00/5). Respondents in the lowest income bracket (<$10K) reported both the highest stigma (2.73/5) and lowest acceptability (3.19/5), suggesting economic vulnerability compounds attitudinal barriers to PrEP.
3.70 Transgender Women — AAF Score
3.00 Cisgender Women — AAF Score
SOURCE

EHE Community Survey, Long Beach CA (N=393–396)

NOTES

All scales range from 1 to 5. AAF = Acceptability (Appeal, Fit, Ease). Stigma items capture anticipatory stigma around PrEP use.