Mpox knowledge, behaviours and barriers to public health measures among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in the UK: A qualitative study to inform public health guidance and messaging

Design

The research employed a qualitative design using semi-structured remote telephone/video-call methods with 44 GBMSM. Interviews were conducted between June and December 2022. The study used elements of the Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) Framework, a novel approach to rapidly developing public health interventions, messaging and guidance. Specific ACE methods are published elsewhere (29), but elements used in this work are outlined below.

Sample and recruitment

Eligibility was based on evolving needs and initially comprised confirmed cases of Mpox, and people identified at higher risk of Mpox, including healthcare workers. We therefore conducted a small number of interviews with cis-women healthcare workers (n=2) during the initial outbreak period (not included in this paper). However, as the epidemic unfolded it became apparent that cases of Mpox were primarily focused occurring among GBMSM. All subsequent interviews were therefore conducted with GBMSM, including some cis-gendered men identifying as heterosexual but reporting having sex with men. Being over 18 years of age and currently living in the UK were also eligibility requirements.

In line with the ACE framework, the study used multiple online and offline recruitment methods to ensure representation from a diverse sample in terms of ethnicity, educational level, Mpox status, geographic location, and social and sexual practices. This included the dissemination of recruitment material on both personal and organizational social media accounts (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram) and a location-based online dating application (Grindr) targeted at postcodes in Manchester and Brighton to ensure geographical variation. The research team also utilized existing partnerships and contacts with sexual health and LGBTQ+ community-based organizations, who shared study material with eligible interviewees through their regular online and face-to-face outreach work, including at Pride events in Summer 2022. These organizations also reached out to specific groups under-represented in our research, including those from minoritized ethnic groups or whose first language was not English, as well as those at increased risk of Mpox through attendance at saunas or sex-on-premises venues.

Individuals registered their interest via an online sign-up page (hosted by Qualtrics) and were asked to leave contact and demographic details. Recruitment for the study commenced in May 2022, shortly after the first reported Mpox case in the UK on 6^th May 2022.

Measures were also undertaken to screen out several participants identified as likely fraudulent. For example, prior to interviews the research team were made aware of several ‘red flags’ used by other qualitative researchers to identify fraudulent research participation, including participants not turning on cameras, brief and vague responses to questions, the citation of recruitment sites not used in the study and frequent emails post-interview requesting payment (30, 31). Similar instances occurred in this study among several interviewees identifying as heterosexual (we did not explicitly screen sexuality prior to interview) reporting recent Mpox acquisition. Vague responses were also given in response to questions regarding acquisition (including no mention of sexual contact with confirmed cases or travel to endemic areas), diagnosis, symptoms and knowledge of Mpox measures for confirmed cases (e.g., isolation periods). Given how the 2022-23 Mpox outbreak almost exclusively affected sexually active networks of GBMSM and the increasing incidence of ‘imposter’ or deceitful participants motivated by financial incentives to participate in qualitative studies (30), we became suspicious about the authenticity of these interviewees. We therefore chose to exclude these interviewees from the study following interview to maintain the integrity of the research.

Ethical approval was granted by the UK Health Security Agency Research Ethics and Governance Group: Reference R&D 512.

Data collection

Interviews were conducted by TM (research fellow in behavioural science) and LT (lecturer in health psychology) via telephone or video call. Both authors have experience in sexual health and sex research. A flexible topic guide (see supplementary material) with open-ended questions was used to elicit views of Mpox (including perceptions of risk and severity) and perceptions of and reactions to mitigation measures aimed at reducing transmission, including isolation, contact tracing, vaccination and healthcare seeking behaviours. Following this, interviewees were shown official UKHSA posters (see supplementary material) and asked what they thought of the content. Think aloud questions (e.g., “what do you think of this message?”) were used to prompt suggestions for the optimization of messages and content. All interviewees were offered £20 in cash or vouchers for each 30 minutes of interview time.

Data Analysis

With consent, interviews were recorded, transcribed, anonymized, and uploaded to NVivo V.12 software for analysis through a reflexive thematic approach taking a critical realist perspective (32, 33). This began with TM and LT independently reading and coding the same three transcripts. A preliminary coding framework, informed deductively by concepts within the topic guide and components from Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) (e.g. perceived susceptibility and severity of Mpox and perceived effectiveness and self-efficacy for protection measures, e.g. testing, self-isolation, contact tracing and vaccination) (34) were used to guide the coding of these transcripts. An inductive approach was then used to refine the framework to reflect any themes or concepts within the data and applied to the remaining transcripts by LT, who coded and synthesised text into categories, which were subsequently analysed and grouped into themes. To ensure rigour in this process, TM and LT met weekly to discuss and iteratively refine new codes or themes that were of potential significance to the research objectives.

Optimisations to Public Health Messaging

To identify any suggested optimisations to official UKHSA posters, we collated all positive and negative comments pertaining to materials in a modified version of a ‘table of changes’ (TOC). The TOC is a tool commonly used in the person-based approach (PBA) (35) whereby quotes relating to elements of an intervention content (including messaging) are used to identify possible intervention-specific optimizations required to promote engagement and behaviour change. To maximise the effectiveness of this approach in a rapid optimisation context (see also (36)), we used a hybrid method that integrated insights from the thematic analysis into the TOC. Hence, perceptions regarding risk and severity of Mpox and perceived acceptability of and capacity to perform public health measures were linked to intervention content in the TOC. For example, quotes relating to one’s perceived risk of contracting Mpox were connected to messaging content around risk reduction, whilst barriers influencing engagement with specific measures were linked to optimisations concerning guidance about specific protective behaviours. This allowed general information relating to Mpox knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours to be collated alongside specific feedback on posters and messages obtained in the interviews, thereby ensuring broader social determinants and contexts influencing behaviour were incorporated into and accounted for in the intervention optimisation processes.

Perceived Risk and Severity of Mpox

Interviewees’ assessments of their level of risk played an important role in willingness to engage with some measures, including healthcare seeking and vaccination uptake. As sexual contact was widely recognized as the dominant mode of transmission, perceived risk was strongly influenced by recent sexual practices or activity. Those who attended sex-on-premises venues or reported recent casual sex recognized they were at greater risk of acquisition, and were generally highly motivated to engage with measures to reduce the level of risk to both themselves and others. This included avoiding sexual contact until they received a vaccine (Until I had my vaccination I avoided sexual contact with anybody and everybody. I basically just switched it off; I was like, that is just too risky, Aged 46-50, White British) and seeking healthcare if they had recent sexual contact with a confirmed case:

So I had loads of sex in the dark room with some total strangers…then on Monday I got a text from one of the people that I had met that night saying that he had a fever on the Sunday…I realised that it would make sense to call myself in [to STI clinic] (Aged 26-30, White British)

The possibility of severe health complications also influenced some interviewees’ perceptions of risk and subsequent decisions to enact risk-reducing behaviours. This was most pronounced among those with comorbidities concerned about the possibility of severe Mpox infection or the exacerbation of their condition. One PLHIV described how this influenced his decision to enact ‘careful’ practices to prevent future health complications:

I am diabetic and have HIV so being somebody that lives with two conditions that can be complicated by other things, I suppose I’m more hyperaware and nervous about it [Mpox] because of that…I am thinking about it when meeting people and putting myself at risk. I’ve definitely been more careful with meeting people (Aged 46-50, Mixed Other)

In contrast, although non-immunocompromised interviewees expressed concern about scarring from lesions and severe pain, Mpox was not considered a significant health concern. The availability of a vaccine and a perception that Mpox was non-life threatening and curable were the most common reasons given. Most interviewees also considered themselves to be relatively young and would not become seriously ill if infected:

I’m not really concerned about getting Monkeypox because I seem to understand it’s not something that’s dangerous, it’s just something that you don’t really want…personally it’s not a massive concern. I would not want it but if I were to catch it, I don’t think it could be the end of the world (Aged 31-35, White Other)

Low perceived Mpox severity could also be understood within a context of ongoing assessment and appraisal of other health threats. There was a perception that, in relation to more ‘severe’ STIs, including HIV, Mpox was less serious and could be quickly identified and treated through frequent STI testing. Some PrEP users described how the benefits of protection from HIV therefore undermined protection from ‘less severe’ STIs, including Mpox:

I related a lot to HIV risk decisions because I’m on PrEP, how I started feeling a lot more comfortable with deciding not to use condoms, not to wear condoms after taking PrEP and even though I’m very much aware that there’s still a lot of risks with other STIs, it always seems that it’s still worth the risk. Just because of the availability of treatment and it’s very easy to get tested, and symptoms are not severe (Aged 31-35, Latin American)

Perceived Acceptability of and Capacity to Perform Measures

Specific barriers relating to each mitigation measure were identified and can be found in Table 2. Three main issues were identified across all measures and are discussed below.

Sexual health-related knowledge, practices and support

Some interviewees described already being proactive in maintaining sexual health, including regular STI testing and the enactment of seroadaptive behaviours (e.g., partner selection/strategic positioning based on HIV status) to reduce STI/HIV risk to themselves and others. Measures and risk-reducing behaviours in response to Mpox were therefore considered highly acceptable and effective as they aligned with established and ‘normalised’ sexual healthcare routines (As a gay man who has regular check-ups, it becomes an everyday part of your life…it’s just one of those things that you do to stay safe, Aged 41-45, White British). High levels of health literacy and engagement with sexual health services also enhanced comfort in one’s ability to detect Mpox and seek appropriate help if required:

It would work for me because I also check myself, I’m very aware of my body whether it’s suffering or catching something, so I will easily make a call to my GP or seek advice or help if I catch it - I know who to call if something happens to me (Aged 36-40, White British)

Those who described barriers to accessing sexual health services or did not report receiving information via social media and GBMSM networks reported how some measures, particularly symptom recognition, were less straightforward to perform. This was because these channels were key sites for public health agencies, community organisations and GBMSM to communicate Mpox health promotion information as well as norms around sexual health and protection. Those who were inadequately represented in and faced difficulties accessing these networks, including racially minoritized groups or people whose first language was not English, therefore had limited exposure to health promotion information, including those communicating Mpox symptoms:

…networks that exist on social media are very biased and they are leaving behind those who don’t speak English, who don’t have access to the internet or do not have access to those networks, and that tends to be people who need most support, because they’re the most vulnerable…[we are] generating a mass of white, highly educated people who will rapidly identify their symptoms and are we leaving behind a vast amount of people who don’t know that much about Monkeypox and will not identify it and don’t know they have it (Aged 26-30, White Other)

Symptom recognition was therefore challenging in the absence of accessible and culturally appropriate information. A particular issue was distinguishing Mpox symptoms from other STIs or common sexual health complaints or injuries. Symptoms that did not match with official guidance emphasizing only ‘severe’ and specific Mpox symptoms (e.g., lesions), undermined the ability to recognise and seek help for potential infection:

So I just started sweating, high temperatures, and then I remember about four days into me feeling ill, I started bleeding from my rectum…I thought it’s probably the guy that I had sex with, [because] back then…bleeding from the rectum wasn’t really a symptom (Aged 26-30, Black Caribbean)

Stigma and sexual orientation openness

Generally, measures requiring disclosure (e.g., testing, contact tracing) were less acceptable to those either subject to or concerned about Mpox-related stigma. These conversations related to perceptions that they would be seen as ‘dirty’ due to the visual symptoms of Mpox ([I] couldn’t help but feel dirty because it affects your skin, it shows up on you…you couldn’t help but feel stigmatised, Aged 36-40, White Other), or as someone engaged in ‘irresponsible’ or ‘promiscuous’ behaviours (all my friends that had it…we all kept it hush-hush from each other, ‘cause it’s sort of like you don’t want to be seen as being the slut, Aged 26-30, Black Caribbean). These issues were most pronounced among racially minoritized groups or those from geographical spaces with small GBMSM scenes, who were concerned about being identified as a source of transmission in their communities:

But also nobody wants to – especially a small city like mine - to be known as one of the first people to have caught it and everybody else thinking that they’re the one that’s the super spreader or whatever. Again, that goes back to the stigma side of things (Aged 26-30, White Other)

These concerns limited engagement with measures, ranging from the complete avoidance of those requiring full disclosure (e.g., healthcare seeking) (I already had my own little scare, a couple of weeks back and I was like, ‘Have I?’ I didn’t get tested because I was riddled with shame about it, Aged 26-30, White Other) to partial engagement or adherence with measures that could be adapted or modified to avoid disclosure (e.g., 21-day isolation). For example, to avoid ‘awkward’ conversations with employers or others who may question why they were isolating for a prolonged period, some described isolating only when symptoms were visible or noticeable to others. One interviewee described how they returned to work shortly after symptoms had disappeared, but enacted precautionary measures to limit transmission to others:

It was selfish – well, it is awkward – but I went back to work…which I probably shouldn’t of but I did but.. It wasn’t my face – it was locked up in underwear, so I knew that I wasn’t gonna spread it! I just put on a facemask – just to be on the safe side (Aged 26-30, Black Caribbean)

Those who were open about their sexuality described these situations and conversations as being more straightforward to perform. These individuals were actively involved with LGBTQ+ networks and comfortable about informing others about their sexual practices and behaviour. In contrast to the account above, one interviewee described how his openness removed any potential discomfort about informing his employee why they were isolating:

I’m a loud, proud, outspoken gay person who doesn’t feel any kind of shame about having a lifestyle that involves loads of shame. So I was telling work I can’t come in because I could have monkeypox. I’ve got a job that is an office job that are now wanting us to come into the office so I go whole weeks without coming in (Aged 26-30, White British)

Retaining Intimacy

A small number of interviewees – particularly those whose attendance at sex-on-premises venues and spaces was central to their social lives and sexual identity - outlined the importance of maintaining social and sexual interactions during this period. For these, the potential cost of a positive test (e.g., 21-day isolation) limited engagement with healthcare services if symptomatic. These decisions were influenced by previous COVID-19 experiences, including how social distancing and the closure of gay venues had restricted opportunities to connect with others through these spaces. In attempts to actively avoid similar experiences, several interviewees described enacting behaviours that allowed for the continuation of social and sexual practices recognised as ‘high-risk’. These ranged from fairly straightforward risk-reduction practices, including limiting sex to known contacts (I’m not fully getting in touch with new people on the apps, I’m only sticking with people I already know, Aged 31-35, White Other), to informed-decision making about what sexual practices, and with whom, were permissible under heightened conditions of risk:

We’d been in situations in [city] where we’d had a lot of fun, we’d attended a couple of parties, we went to huge club events where there was like 30,000 shirtless men in close proximity. We went to a couple of sex on premises events and stuff like that. So, we knew we’d been at risk but we hadn’t been reckless either. You know, we were quite aware that this was a thing. We were kind of, to the best way that we could, we were checking people (Aged 36-40, White Other)

Optimisation of Messaging

Interviews provided in-depth insights into perceptions of UKHSA messages and communications and ways these could be optimised to overcome some of the aforementioned behavioural barriers. All feedback was collated in a table of changes (Table 3) and any potential optimisations and changes to content were discussed during interviews. Although a range of suggestions to the content were made, we have focused on higher priority feedback considered most important in prompting engagement with content and protective behaviours.

Targeted vs Inclusive Messaging

Discussions regarding the delivery and framing of Mpox messaging focused heavily on whether this should be targeted towards those most at risk of contracting Mpox. Some felt that tailored messaging specifying that sexually-active GBMSM were primarily at risk of, and responsible for (through sexual contact), Mpox could be leveraged to further reinforce homophobic tropes and stereotypes of sexual promiscuity and recklessness. In particular, concerns were raised about emphasizing the role of gay sex in transmission, particularly as group sex and anonymous hook ups were already highly stigmatised gay sexual behaviours. Interviewees who were less open about their sexuality, or reported concerns about being judged by others, therefore favoured messaging that avoided linking Mpox acquisition with gay sex (e.g. “Anyone can get it”). These messages limited the potential for further shaming and marginalization:

I don’t think it [targeted messaging] would necessarily be more helpful because then it’s causing some kind of stigmatisation or discrimination so it can do more harm than good. So even though the percentage is 90% of cases, but really anyone can still get it so that really is the message (Aged 26-30, Black Caribbean)

These views contrasted with those actively engaged and participating in online and offline GBMSM networks, who were already proactive in sharing Mpox information and support across these spaces. For this group, generic and non-specific messaging did not accurately reflect the fact that sexual encounters between gay men were the dominant mode of Mpox transmission. Messaging failing to acknowledge the role of sex between men in transmission was therefore inaccurate and risked failing to reach those groups most at risk of contracting Mpox. One interviewee reported how, in the absence of such messaging, targeted peer-to-peer information communicating the role of sex between men was welcomed and helped influence risk perceptions:

I don’t think they should sway away from making sure and making it prominent in their reporting that it is spreading amongst men who have sex with men, because that’s the reason that I’m so aware of it now… And I don’t think it’s wrong to report it that way, because it has raised so much awareness between me my gay friends (Aged 21-25, White British)

Content and Information

There was a consensus that messaging needed greater clarity and precision in communicating specific and up-to-date Mpox symptoms. This was especially important during the initial stages of the outbreak when information regarding transmission risks and symptoms was often inconsistent and incomplete. As a result, some interviewees reported difficulties distinguishing Mpox symptoms from common STIs with symptom crossovers during these periods (Well, I don’t know because If it was a rash, I actually have psoriasis as well, so if I thought it might be psoriasis I’d probably ignore it, to be honest, Aged 21-25, White British). Others felt that messages focusing on ‘severe’ symptoms meant minor ones would go unnoticed. Acknowledging the changing – and atypical – context was cited as a useful method to improve symptom awareness and recognition:

I think what they need to do really is to make it clear that this outbreak is atypical, that this outbreak is not what they have seen in Africa…that the one here in the UK is different, it’s more localised in the body and people might not get all the symptoms, they might not even get a rash…so, just to make it obvious that even though it’s the same virus it behaves differently here for some reason (Aged 41-45, Latin American)

Amongst all interviewees, there was consensus that harm reduction measures, including information on how to reduce one’s risk of acquiring Mpox, would be useful in messages. Abstinence-based measures were perceived as ineffective and unrealistic to perform, and there was a preference for messages promoting the uptake of ‘safer’ behaviours:

The idea of telling people to not have sex just doesn’t make any sense because people are not going to in a sense follow that. I think we have to come up with if you’re not made to stop having sex how can we in a sense reduce your risk or make it safer for you to have sex…the message may be reducing your sexual partners (Aged 26-30, Black Caribbean)

Communication channels and pathways

An important finding in itself was that most interviewees had not seen UKHSA posters/messages before participating in the study. Instead, most Mpox information had been obtained through social media platforms (specifically Tik Tok and Twitter) or peer-to-peer communication, including information about Mpox symptoms and prevention measures (e.g. vaccination sites). Information obtained from key organisations and voices within the LGBTQ+ community, including the sharing of experiences of Mpox infection and self-care, were perceived as relatable and helped communicate the possibility - and risk - of Mpox infection:

I follow some people on Twitter and they posted images of their sores and lesions and it’s quite horrific to say the least, and being gay myself there’s this worry that I will get it in the future as well (Aged 36-40, White British)

However, there was a perception that communication via social media had a tendency to relay personal and subjective (and often extreme) Mpox experiences that increased the possibility of misinformation being spread. In these situations, official advice from ‘credible’ sources was considered helpful to mitigate information inconsistencies, even if it was incomplete or lacking in specific detail at the time:

I think that sometimes you need an official source, you look to people like UKHSA as kind of the bastions of the facts and I think that when people like that are not talking, when NHS England are not telling you anything about monkeypox, when the media are only reporting bad things about it and making out like it’s some new gay plague…[they] are super important because they go, ‘Right, here’s the facts. This is what we know. This is all we know right now and it’s probably not everything that you want to know but we are telling you everything that we know.’ So, it’s an honest, truthful version (Aged 46-50, White British)