Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) knowledge, use, and discontinuation among Lake Victoria fisherfolk in Uganda: a cross-sectional population-based study
======================================================================================================================================================

* Kauthrah Ntabadde
* Joseph Kagaayi
* Victor Ssempijja
* Xinyi Feng
* Robert Kairania
* Joseph Lubwama
* Robert Ssekubugu
* Ping Teresa Yeh
* Joseph Ssekasanvu
* Aaron A R Tobian
* Caitlin E. Kennedy
* Lisa A. Mills
* Stella Alamo
* Philip Kreniske
* John Santelli
* Lisa J. Nelson
* Steven J. Reynolds
* Larry William Chang
* Gertrude Nakigozi
* M. Kate Grabowski

## ABSTRACT

**Background** There are limited population-level data on the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) care continuum in eastern Africa. Here, we assessed the PrEP care continuum following PrEP rollout in a Ugandan community with ∼40% HIV seroprevalence.

**Methods** We used cross-sectional population-based data collected between September 3 and December 19, 2018 from a Lake Victoria fishing community in southern Uganda to measure levels of self-reported PrEP knowledge, ever use, and discontinuation following 2017 PrEP rollout via a U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)-supported phased implementation program. Our analysis included HIV-seronegative persons reporting having ever received an HIV test result. We examined associations between demographic, behavioral, and health utilization factors with each outcome using age-adjusted modified Poisson regression.

**Results** There were 1,401 HIV-seronegative participants, of whom 1,363 (97.3%) reported ever receiving an HIV test result. Median age was 29 years (IQR: 23-36), and 42.3% (n=577) were women. Most (85.5%; n=1,166) participants reported PrEP knowledge, but few (14.5%; n=197) reported ever using PrEP. Among 375 (47.7%) men and 169 (29.3%) women PrEP-eligible at time of survey, 18.9% (n=71) and 27.8% (n=47) reported ever using PrEP, respectively. Over half (52.3%, n=103) of those who had ever used PrEP, self-reported current use.

**Conclusion** In this Lake Victoria fishing community, there were low levels of PrEP use despite high levels of PrEP awareness and eligibility, particularly among men. Efforts that enhance awareness of HIV risk and increase PrEP accessibility may help increase PrEP use among HIV-seronegative persons in African settings with high HIV burden.

Keywords
*   HIV
*   pre-exposure prophylaxis
*   PrEP
*   Africa
*   Uganda
*   Lake Victoria fisherfolk
*   key populations

## INTRODUCTION

Despite major advances in the treatment and prevention of HIV, the virus remains a major public health threat, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (1). Within Africa, the HIV epidemic is concentrated in the eastern and southern regions, which accounted for more than half of all new infections worldwide in 2020 (1). In 2015, the World Health Organization recommended the use of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) by people at substantial risk of HIV acquisition (2), following randomized studies demonstrating significant reductions in HIV incidence among persons adhering to oral PrEP (3–6). These guidelines were subsequently adopted by many African countries with high HIV burden, including Uganda (7). However, population-based data on PrEP uptake in African populations outside of PEPFAR program data since PrEP guidelines were adopted are rare.

Beginning in 2017, the United States Centers for Disease Control through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEFPAR) initiated PrEP implementation projects in selected African populations at high risk for HIV, including Lake Victoria fishing communities in eastern Africa. Fishing communities in the Lake Victoria basin have among the highest HIV incidence rates globally, with adult HIV seroprevalence typically exceeding 20% (8). While these communities were among those prioritized for early rollout of oral PrEP, limited available programmatic and qualitative data suggests major challenges with retaining eligible individuals in these communities in PrEP programs (9,10). For example, in a program evaluation among fisherfolk in southern Uganda, Kagaayi et al. reported >90% oral PrEP uptake among those screened and eligible, but median retention time among persons who initiated PrEP was only 45 days (10). It remains unclear to what extent PrEP screening programs have reached individuals at substantial risk of HIV in Lake Victoria fishing communities and how this may have affected overall population-level patterns of PrEP use and retention.

The Rakai Community Cohort Study (RCCS) is an ongoing population HIV surveillance cohort in southern Uganda, including four Lake Victoria fishing communities with ∼40% HIV seroprevalence (11). The largest of these four fishing communities was the site of a PEPFAR-supported PrEP implementation project, which began in October 2017. Here, we used cross-sectional population-level data from this fishing community to assess levels and factors associated with PrEP knowledge, ever use, and discontinuation following PrEP implementation in 2018. In contrast to prior programmatic and clinic-based assessments, we evaluated PrEP eligibility among HIV-seronegative persons at a population-level and estimated the extent to which individuals at substantial risk of HIV and therefore PrEP-eligible were aware of and engaged with PrEP services. Understanding patterns of PrEP knowledge, ever use, and discontinuation at a population-level may inform future PrEP implementation strategies in Lake Victoria fisherfolk and other populations at substantial risk of HIV acquisition in Africa (12).

## METHODS

### Study population and setting

This cross-sectional study was nested in the RCCS, an open population-based HIV census and surveillance cohort in south central Uganda, including four Lake Victoria fishing communities. The RCCS is conducted by the Rakai Health Sciences Program (RHSP), which is both an HIV research organization and implementer of PEPFAR –funded HIV prevention and treatment services. The RCCS has been described in detail elsewhere (10,11,13). In brief, a detailed household census is conducted prior to each RCCS survey. The census enumerates all household members irrespective of age and is followed by a survey of age-eligible persons 15-49 years and resident in study communities for ≥6 months. The RCCS survey obtains data on participant demographics, sexual behaviors, recent sexual partnerships, HIV service utilization, including information on past and current PrEP use, among other data. Consenting survey participants are also tested for HIV using a validated rapid HIV testing algorithm (7) with confirmation by an enzyme immunoassay for persons testing HIV-seropositive for the first time. All RCCS participants are linked to HIV prevention services, as well as care and treatment if HIV-seropositive per Uganda clinical guidelines.

Our analysis was restricted to HIV-seronegative adolescents and adults aged 15-49 years living in the largest of the four Lake Victoria fishing communities under RCCS surveillance. Data from this community were obtained between September 3, 2018 and December 19, 2018 as part of the nineteenth survey round of RCCS data collection. The analysis timeline was purposively selected to allow adequate time for PrEP implementation (∼1 year) as well as to avoid possible confounding effect of COVID 19 pandemic, which began in March 2020 in Uganda. This particular fishing community is located along the banks of Lake Victoria in Kyotera district near Uganda’s border with Tanzania, where the first HIV cases were identified in Eastern Africa (14).

### Ethics

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Uganda Virus Research Institute (GC/127/08/12/137) and the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Institutional Review Board (IRB00217467), and was registered with the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (HS 540). All RCCS participants provide written informed consent (or assent with parental consent if <18 years) prior to survey participation. This project was reviewed in accordance with CDC human research protection procedures and was determined to be research, but CDC investigators did not interact with human subjects or have access to identifiable data or specimens for research purposes.

### The oral PrEP programme

Oral PrEP (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate [TDF] and lamivudine [3TC]) was first rolled out among key and priority populations in southern Uganda, including among Lake Victoria fisherfolk in 2017. Details of its implementation have been described previously (10). In the Lake Victoria fishing community in this study, residents were initially mobilized and sensitized about PrEP through RHSP-supported community outreach efforts. As part of community outreach, residents were referred to health facilities for PrEP eligibility screening which was done using a risk-screening tool. Individuals were deemed PrEP-eligible if they reported at least one of the following risk factors: 1) vaginal sexual intercourse with more than one partner of unknown HIV status in the past six months; 2) vaginal sex without a condom in the past six months; 3) anal sexual intercourse in the past six months; 4) sex in exchange for money, goods or a service in the last six months; 5) injecting drugs in the past six months; 6) diagnosis with a sexually transmitted infection more than once in the past twelve months; 7) post-exposure prophylaxis for sexual exposure to HIV in the past six months; and 8) having a sexual partner with HIV who was not on ART. Eligible persons who initiated PrEP were then followed on a quarterly basis at health facilities for adherence counseling, HIV retesting, and evaluation of side effects.

In this current study, we assessed likely PrEP eligibility among RCCS participants by classifying them as having substantial HIV risk based on criteria previously described by Ssempijja et al (15). Criteria were analogous, though somewhat different, to the Uganda’s national prep eligibility criteria above. Briefly, individuals were considered to have substantial HIV risk (i.e., likely PrEP eligible) if they were HIV-seronegative and reported at least one of the following risk behaviors in the last year: having multiple sexual partners of unknown HIV serostatus, having genital ulcer disease, having non-marital sex without a condom, or engaging in transactional sex (considered to be sexual exploitation for those <18 years by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child(16)).

### Primary outcomes

Our primary outcomes included PrEP knowledge, PrEP ever use and PrEP discontinuation assessed by self-report at time of RCCS survey. PrEP knowledge and PrEP ever use were defined as self-reported “yes” responses to the questions: “Have you ever heard about a way to prevent HIV which involves an HIV-seronegative person taking a daily pill called PrEP to reduce their risk of acquiring HIV while in a sexual relationship with someone who might be HIV-positive?” and “Have you ever used PrEP?”. PrEP discontinuation was defined as a self-reported response “no” to current PrEP use but “yes” to PrEP ever use in the same survey. We ascertained reasons for PrEP discontinuation from a multiple response question that began by asking participants who had discontinued PrEP “Why did you stop using PrEP?”.

### Statistical analysis

We first described baseline demographic and behavioral characteristics of study participants by gender, with categorical variables reported as frequencies and percentages and continuous variables as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR). Next, we assessed the proportion self-reporting PrEP knowledge and ever use by age and gender with proportions reported as percentages (i.e., prevalence). Individual-level correlates of PrEP knowledge and ever use were evaluated for male and female participants separately using modified Poisson regression with robust variance estimators with and without adjustment for age. Associations were reported as unadjusted and age-adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Correlates evaluated included age, educational level, occupation, recent in-migration to the community (since last RCCS survey; ∼18 month interval), marital status, number of sexual partners in the past year, perceived HIV risk, intimate partner violence (i.e., self-reported experience of domestic and/or sexual abuse), substantial HIV risk/likely PrEP eligibility at time of survey, self-reported HIV test in the past year, use of at least one family planning method, and transactional sex with ≥1 of four most recent sexual partners in the past year. Given that PrEP use is driven by PrEP eligibility, we also conducted stratified analyses of PrEP ever use by substantial HIV risk/likely PrEP eligibility. We conducted similar analyses for PrEP discontinuation among those reporting having ever used PrEP; however, analyses were not stratified by gender due to limited sample size. Analyses were performed using Stata Version 17.

## RESULTS

### Study population

There were 2,701 survey participants, of whom 1,401 (64.4%) tested HIV seronegative, including 577 (42.3%) women. Of these 1,401 participants, 1,363 (97%) reported having ever been tested for HIV and were subsequently asked about their PrEP knowledge and use. Median age among HIV seronegative participants who reported ever testing for HIV was 31 (IQR: 25-38) and 27 (IQR: 22-33) years among male and female participants, respectively (Table 1). The majority had at least some primary education, an HIV test within the past 12 months, and were married. Nearly half (47.7%) of all male participants and 29.3% of female participants were classified as being PrEP-eligible; however, female participants were more likely to report that they were very likely to acquire HIV (51.5% vs. 36.8%, respectively).

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/30/2024.03.29.24305076/T1)

Table 1: Characteristics of male and female study participants in the largest of four Lake Victoria fishing communities under RCCS surveillance in south central Uganda, between September and December of 2018

### Prevalence and correlates of PrEP knowledge

Overall, 85.5% (n=1166/1363) of participants self-reported knowledge of PrEP (Table 2). The proportion of participants with PrEP knowledge did not significantly vary by gender (86.5% [680/786] among male vs. 84.2% [486/577] among female participants), but tended to be lower among adolescents 15-19 years relative to older age groups (Figure 1). Among male participants, knowledge of PrEP was significantly lower among those who self-reported transactional sex in the last year, those who self-reported being not at risk or having unknown risk of HIV acquisition, and those who self-reported not having an HIV test in the past year (Table 2). Conversely, men who reported using a family planning method versus those who did not were more likely to have PrEP knowledge, as were currently married men compared to men who had never been married. Similar to men, PrEP knowledge was significantly lower among female participants with lower levels of HIV risk perception, but higher among those using family planning methods (Table 2). While PrEP knowledge was significantly higher among women who reported multiple sexual partners and who were likely PrEP eligible, this was not the case for men (Table 2).

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/30/2024.03.29.24305076/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/30/2024.03.29.24305076/F1)

Figure 1. Prevalence of self-reported PrEP knowledge and ever use by gender and age among RCCS participants in a Lake Victoria Fishing community in southcentral Uganda in 2019

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/30/2024.03.29.24305076/T2)

Table 2: Individual-level correlates of PrEP knowledge among male and female RCCS participants in a Lake Victoria Fishing Community in southcentral Uganda in 2019.

### Prevalence and Correlates of PrEP ever use

Prevalence of PrEP ever use was 14.5% (n=197/1363) and was generally similar between male and female participants (14.8% [116/786] versus 14% [81/577], respectively), but similar to PrEP knowledge, lower among adolescents (Figure 1). Participants classified as being at substantial HIV risk (i.e., likely PrEP eligible) at time of survey were significantly more likely to report having used PrEP compared to those who were not at substantial HIV risk (21.7% [n=118/544] vs 9.7% [79/819]; adjPR= 2.27; 95%CI: 1.75 – 2.95; p= <0.001). While proportionately more male than female participants were at substantial HIV risk and likely PrEP eligible (47.7% [n=375/786] versus 29.3% [n=169/577]; Supplemental Table 1), prevalence of PrEP ever use was significantly higher among female versus male participants likely PrEP eligible (27.8% [47/169] versus 18.9% [71/375]; PRR=1.47; 95%CI: 1.07 – 2.02; p= 0.019) (Fig 2).

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/30/2024.03.29.24305076/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/30/2024.03.29.24305076/F2)

Figure 2. Prevalence of self-reported PrEP ever use among RCSS participants with and without substantial HIV risk (i.e., likely PrEP eligibility) at time of survey in a Lake Victoria Fishing community in southcentral Uganda in 2019

Among male participants, having three or more sexual partners in the past year, higher HIV risk perception, or having an HIV test in the last year was significantly associated with higher levels of PrEP ever use (Table 3). This was also the case among female participants; however, girls and women were also significantly more likely to report having used PrEP if they reported intimate partner violence or transactional sex/sexual exploitation (Table 3). Female participants who reported using a family planning method also tended to have higher levels of PrEP ever use as compared to female participants who did not report using a family planning method (adjPR=1.58; 95%CI:0.99-2.52). Individual-level correlates of PrEP ever use were generally similar among participants at substantial HIV risk (Supplemental Table 1).

View this table:
[Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/30/2024.03.29.24305076/T3)

Table 3: Individual-level correlates of PrEP ever use among female and male RCCS participants in a Lake Victoria fishing community in southcentral Uganda in 2019

### Prevalence and correlates of PrEP discontinuation

Among participants who reported ever using PrEP (n=197), 47.7% (n= 94) reported that they were not currently using PrEP at time of survey (i.e., discontinued PrEP). The most common reasons for reporting PrEP discontinuation were: side effects (39.4%; 37/94), pill burden (20.2%; 19/94), low risk perception (12.8%; 12/94), trouble transferring between clinics (9.6%; 9/94), not ready to take PrEP (7.5%; 7/94); and lack of pills (5.3%; 5/94). Other less common reasons included stigma (n=3), use of other HIV prevention methods (n=4), skepticism about the efficacy of PrEP (n=2), and long distance to the clinic (n=2). With the exception of higher educational status, which was associated with higher levels of discontinuation, levels of PrEP discontinuation did not substantially vary by age or any other individual-level factors, including being at substantial HIV risk (Supplemental Table 2).

## DISCUSSION

In this cross-sectional, population-based study of oral PrEP use in a Ugandan Lake Victoria fishing community following a community-based PrEP implementation project, we observed very high levels of PrEP knowledge, but low levels of PrEP use. PrEP knowledge and ever use tended to be lower among adolescents, while PrEP ever use was higher among those with elevated HIV risk perception, and persons reporting having had an HIV test in the last year. While male participants had higher levels of HIV-associated risk behaviors, they had significantly lower levels of PrEP use as compared to their female counterparts. Among those who reported having ever used PrEP, less than 50% were currently using PrEP at time of survey and most people at substantial HIV risk and likely PrEP eligible had never used PrEP.

More than 80% of participants in our study population were aware of PrEP. Although few prior studies have assessed PrEP knowledge at a community-level, our findings are consistent with a 2019 population-based survey of persons aged 18-24 in six counties in western Kenya (17), which similarly found that 84% of persons were aware of PrEP. However, studies of high-risk key populations in Uganda and other African countries have reported substantially lower levels of PrEP knowledge, with typically less than half of participants being PrEP-aware (18–20). Levels of PrEP knowledge in this study were likely high because of intensive community-based outreach done as part of the implementation project. Such activities have been previously shown to improve PrEP awareness and uptake in high burden areas such as Lake Victoria fishing communities (21).

While PrEP awareness was generally high, both awareness and use were lowest among adolescent boys and girls aged 15-19 years. Such relatively low levels of PrEP use among adolescents compared to other age groups also have been observed in other settings (22,23). Despite low PrEP use, we found that participants under 25 years of age had the highest prevalence of substantial HIV risk behaviors, and across Africa, adolescents girls are typically the age-group most at risk of HIV acquisition (24). Thus, our findings suggest that innovative approaches may be needed to improve the PrEP care continuum among adolescents. Future research should identify barriers to PrEP awareness and use in this population to inform tailored outreach strategies.

Consistent with earlier studies in African populations at high risk for HIV (18,25,26), we found generally low levels of PrEP use despite high levels of PrEP awareness. Critically, the majority of participants at substantial HIV risk and likely PrEP eligible had never used PrEP. While men were more likely to be at substantial HIV risk than women, men were significantly less likely to have ever used PrEP compared to their female counterparts with similarly high levels of HIV-related risk factors. Notably, most men in our study were Lake Victoria fishermen, who are often highly mobile (27). Prior studies have linked higher levels of mobility to reduced PrEP uptake and retention (9). While most prior PrEP implementation studies in Africa have focused on girls and women, our findings underscore the need to tailor service delivery for men. Differentiated PrEP delivery models that include out-of-clinic options, event driven PrEP, multi-month dispensing and long-acting PrEP options (such as cabotegravir) could improve PrEP uptake among men, adolescents, and other mobile groups in Lake Victoria fishing communities (28,29).

We also observed that higher self-perceived HIV risk was associated with a higher propensity for PrEP ever use irrespective of gender. This finding is consistent with those from prior studies, which have similarly reported that HIV risk perception underpins PrEP use in African populations (22,30,31). We also found that PrEP use was strongly linked to recent HIV testing behavior. While this could be the result of HIV testing requirements for those who initiate and continue PrEP, an earlier study also conducted among Ugandan Lake Victoria fisherfolk observed that having tested for HIV within the last 6 months was associated with higher odds of willingness to use PrEP (32). Moreover, participants in a qualitative study conducted among adolescents in the Western Cape province of South Africa expressed that the availability of the PrEP option to protect themselves against HIV acquisition motivates them to be aware of their HIV status and therefore test regularly (33). In addition to recent HIV testing, those reporting using family planning also tended to have higher levels of PrEP awareness and PrEP ever use. People using health services such as HIV testing and family planning may have more frequent contacts with the health care system, and thus, additional opportunities for exposure to PrEP. Better integration of HIV and sexual and reproductive services could improve PrEP use and other health outcomes (34,35).

Nearly half of the participants who had ever used PrEP in this study were no longer taking PrEP at time of survey. Although we were unable to specify the timing of PrEP initiation or discontinuation, our findings are congruent with those from a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa that found nearly half of individuals who initiated PrEP discontinued PrEP within 6 months (36). It is possible these high levels of PrEP discontinuation in African populations are a result of dynamic HIV risk within individuals. For example, a recent population-based study, nested in the same cohort as this study in Uganda, reported that HIV-risk waxes and wanes over time for many people (37). Prior qualitative studies in Uganda also have linked PrEP discontinuation to stigma, PrEP side effects, and transportation barriers, which we similarly observed in this study (9,32). In our study, the most common specified barriers were side effects and pill burden, rather than a change in self-perceived risk. Enhanced counseling for side effects, including that they wane over time, and expansion of event-driven PrEP to all persons with male sex at birth not on estradiol hormones, as well as prioritizing implementation of new PrEP agents including long acting cabotegravir and the dapivirine vaginal ring (38,39), may help attenuate these common reasons for discontinuation

Our analysis has important limitations. First, this study was cross-sectional analysis and so our ability to infer temporal relationships between demographic, behavioral, and health utilization factors with PrEP outcomes was limited. For example, we do not know whether high levels of HIV testing among those who had reported PrEP ever use were a cause or consequence of PrEP initiation. We also do not know how changes in PrEP eligibility within individuals may have changed over time and impacted PrEP outcomes, particularly PrEP discontinuation. Second, most data in this study were self-reported, including primary study outcomes, and are likely subject to measurement bias. Third, our assessment of PrEP eligibility from self-reported HIV risk factors in the RCCS only approximated those used in Uganda’s national PrEP eligibility tool. Specifically, we considered only a subset of risk behaviors and these were measured over the last year rather than the prior 6 months. Fourth, we did not assess timing of PrEP discontinuation, and because only few people had ever reported PrEP use, we had limited power to detect factors associated with this outcome. Fifth, this study was conducted in only one Lake Victoria fishing community in Uganda with extremely high HIV burden, and so results may not be generalizable to other populations. Lastly, data for these analyses were collected in 2018. While this allowed us to avoid the confounding influence of COVID-19 lockdowns on PrEP programs, factors associated with PrEP use may have changed in the intervening years. For example, PrEP scale-up in Uganda has since expanded.

In conclusion, this Lake Victoria fishing community with extremely high HIV prevalence had low levels of PrEP use despite high levels of PrEP awareness and PrEP eligibility. At the population level, PrEP use is linked to higher perceived HIV risk, HIV-associated risk factors, and recent HIV testing. Efforts that enhance awareness of HIV risk and increase linkage to PrEP through integrated health services may help increase PrEP use among HIV-seronegative persons in African settings with high HIV burden. Newer PrEP options that are long-acting may also be more suitable for mobile populations. More implementation research is needed to improve PrEP uptake and persistence among eligible people.

## Meetings at which parts of the data were presented

Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Seattle, Feb 2023

## Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The Rakai Community Cohort Study round 19 was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH099733, R01MH105313, R01MH107275, R01MH115799), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI114438, K25AI114461, R01AI123002, K01AI125086, R01AI128779, R01AI143333), National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (K01AA024068), Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD091003) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP1175094). The study was also supported in part by the Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. KN received training and support from the National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Center (D43TW010557). The funders were not involved in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript. This study has also been supported by the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) through CDC under the terms of NU2GGH002009.

## Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

## Data Availability

Data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author and Rakai Health Sciences Program.

View this table:
[Supplemental Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/30/2024.03.29.24305076/T4)

Supplemental Table 1: Individual-level correlates of PrEP ever use among 544 participants in a Lake Victoria Fishing community in southcentral Uganda in 2019 at substantial HIV risk/likely PrEP eligible stratified by gender.

View this table:
[Supplemental Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/30/2024.03.29.24305076/T5)

Supplemental Table 2: Individual-level correlates of PrEP discontinuation use among female and male RCCS participants reporting PrEP ever use (n=197) in a Lake Victoria fishing community in southcentral Uganda in 2019

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (grant numbers R01AI143333, R01AI155080, K01AI125086, P30AI094189); the National Institute of Mental Health (grant numbers R01MH107275, R01MH115799, D43TW010557); the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grant number R01HD091003); the Division of Intramural Research of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases; and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (grant number NU2GGH000817). We thank the personnel at the Office of Cyberinfrastructure and Computational Biology at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for data management support. Additionally, we thank the study participants and many staff and investigators who made this study possible.

*   Received March 29, 2024.
*   Revision received March 29, 2024.
*   Accepted March 30, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## REFERENCES

1.  1.UNAIDS\_FactSheet\_en.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jan 8]. Available from: [https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media\_asset/UNAIDS\_FactSheet\_en.pdf](https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/UNAIDS_FactSheet_en.pdf)
    
    

2.  2.World Health Organization. Guideline on when to start antiretroviral therapy and on pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jul 5]. Available from: [https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241509565](https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241509565)
    
    

3.  3.Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu AY, Vargas L, et al. Preexposure Chemoprophylaxis for HIV Prevention in Men Who Have Sex with Men. N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 30;363(27):2587–99.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1011205&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21091279&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F30%2F2024.03.29.24305076.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000285763700004&link_type=ISI) 

4.  4.Choopanya K, Martin M, Suntharasamai P, Sangkum U, Mock PA, Leethochawalit M, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV infection in injecting drug users in Bangkok, Thailand (the Bangkok Tenofovir Study): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. The Lancet. 2013 Jun;381(9883):2083–90.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61127-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23769234&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F30%2F2024.03.29.24305076.atom) 

5.  5.Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, Smith DK, Rose CE, Segolodi TM, et al. Antiretroviral Preexposure Prophylaxis for Heterosexual HIV Transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2012 Aug 2;367(5):423–34.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1110711&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22784038&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F30%2F2024.03.29.24305076.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000307001900007&link_type=ISI) 

6.  6.Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, Mugo NR, Campbell JD, Wangisi J, et al. Antiretroviral Prophylaxis for HIV-1 Prevention among Heterosexual Men and Women. N Engl J Med. 2012 Aug 2;367(5):399–410.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1108524&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22784037&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F30%2F2024.03.29.24305076.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000307001900005&link_type=ISI) 

7.  7.Uganda Ministry of Health. Consolidated Guidelines for Prevention and Treatment of HIV in Uganda | Ministry of Health Knowledge Management Portal [Internet]. [cited 2021 Nov 5]. Available from: [http://library.health.go.ug/publications/hivaids/consolidated-guidelines-prevention-and-treatment-hiv-uganda](http://library.health.go.ug/publications/hivaids/consolidated-guidelines-prevention-and-treatment-hiv-uganda)
    
    

8.  8.Opio A, Muyonga M, Mulumba N. HIV Infection in Fishing Communities of Lake Victoria Basin of Uganda – A Cross-Sectional Sero-Behavioral Survey. PLoS ONE. 2013 Aug 5;8(8):e70770.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0070770&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23940638&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F30%2F2024.03.29.24305076.atom) 

9.  9.Ddaaki W, Strömdahl S, Yeh PT, Rosen JG, Jackson J, Nakyanjo N, et al. Qualitative Assessment of Barriers and Facilitators of PrEP Use Before and After Rollout of a PrEP Program for Priority Populations in South-central Uganda. AIDS Behav. 2021 Nov 1;25(11):3547–62.
    
    

10. 10.Kagaayi J, Batte J, Nakawooya H, Kigozi B, Nakigozi G, Strömdahl S, et al. Uptake and retention on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among key and priority populations in South-Central Uganda. J Int AIDS Soc. 2020;23(8):e25588.
    
    

11. 11.Chang LW, Grabowski MK, Ssekubugu R, Nalugoda F, Kigozi G, Nantume B, et al. Heterogeneity of the HIV epidemic in agrarian, trading, and fishing communities in Rakai, Uganda: an observational epidemiological study. Lancet HIV. 2016 Aug;3(8):e388–96.
    
    

12. 12.2025 AIDS TARGETS – UNAIDS [Internet]. [cited 2021 Nov 6]. Available from: [https://aidstargets2025.unaids.org/#section-targets](https://aidstargets2025.unaids.org/#section-targets)
    
    

13. 13.Grabowski MK, Serwadda DM, Gray RH, Nakigozi G, Kigozi G, Kagaayi J, et al. HIV Prevention Efforts and Incidence of HIV in Uganda. N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 30;377(22):2154–66.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa1702150&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29171817&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F30%2F2024.03.29.24305076.atom) 

14. 14.Serwadda D, Sewankambo NK, Carswell JW, Bayley AC, Tedder RS, Weiss RA, et al. SLIM DISEASE: A NEW DISEASE IN UGANDA AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH HTLV-III INFECTION. The Lancet. 1985 Oct 19;326(8460):849–52.
    
    

15. 15.Ssempijja V, Nakigozi G, Ssekubugu R, Kagaayi J, Kigozi G, Nalugoda F, et al. HIGH RATE OF PRE-EXPOSURE PROPHYLAXIS (PrEP) ELIGIBILITY AND ASSOCIATED HIV INCIDENCE IN A POPULATION WITH A GENERALIZED HIV EPIDEMIC IN RAKAI, UGANDA. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2022 Apr 13;doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000002946.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/QAI.0000000000002946&link_type=DOI) 

16. 16.United Nations. OHCHR. [cited 2024 Mar 18]. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available from: [https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child](https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child)
    
    

17. 17.Begnel ER, Escudero J, Mugambi M, Mugwanya K, Kinuthia J, Beima-Sofie K, et al. High pre-exposure prophylaxis awareness and willingness to pay for pre-exposure prophylaxis among young adults in Western Kenya: results from a population-based survey. Int J STD AIDS. 2020 Apr;31(5):454–9.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F30%2F2024.03.29.24305076.atom) 

18. 18.Harling G, Muya A, Ortblad KF, Mashasi I, Dambach P, Ulenga N, et al. HIV risk and pre-exposure prophylaxis interest among female bar workers in Dar es Salaam: cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2019 Mar;9(3):e023272.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiOS8zL2UwMjMyNzIiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wMy8zMC8yMDI0LjAzLjI5LjI0MzA1MDc2LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

19. 19.Muwonge TR, Nsubuga R, Brown C, Nakyanzi A, Bagaya M, Bambia F, et al. Knowledge and barriers of PrEP delivery among diverse groups of potential PrEP users in Central Uganda. PLOS ONE. 2020 Oct 28;15(10):e0241399.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0241399&link_type=DOI) 

20. 20.Hensen B, Machingura F, Busza J, Birdthistle I, Chabata ST, Chiyaka T, et al. How Can We Support the Use of Oral PrEP Among Young Women who Sell Sex? A PrEP Cascade Analysis. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2021 Sep 1;88(1):45–56.
    
    

21. 21.Edwards AJ, Pollard R, Kennedy CE, Mulamba J, Mbabali I, Anok A, et al. Impact of community health worker intervention on PrEP knowledge and use in Rakai, Uganda: A mixed methods, implementation science evaluation. Int J STD AIDS. 2022 Oct;33(11):995–1004.
    
    

22. 22.Koss CA, Ayieko J, Mwangwa F, Owaraganise A, Kwarisiima D, Balzer LB, et al. Early Adopters of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Preexposure Prophylaxis in a Population-based Combination Prevention Study in Rural Kenya and Uganda. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2018 Dec 12;67(12):1853.
    
    

23. 23.Koss CA, Charlebois ED, Ayieko J, Kwarisiima D, Kabami J, Balzer LB, et al. Uptake, engagement, and adherence to pre-exposure prophylaxis offered after population HIV testing in rural Kenya and Uganda: 72-week interim analysis of observational data from the SEARCH study. Lancet HIV. 2020 Apr 1;7(4):e249–61.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S2352-3018(19)30433-3&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32087152&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F30%2F2024.03.29.24305076.atom) 

24. 24.UNAIDS. Uganda country factsheets [Internet]. [cited 2021 Nov 5]. Available from: [https://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/uganda](https://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/uganda)
    
    

25. 25.Guure C, Afagbedzi S, Torpey K. Willingness to take and ever use of pre-exposure prophylaxis among female sex workers in Ghana. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Feb 4;101(5):e28798.
    
    

26. 26.Stephenson R, Darbes LA, Chavanduka T, Essack Z,  van Rooyen H. HIV Testing, Knowledge and Willingness to Use PrEP Among Partnered Men Who Have Sex With Men in South Africa and Namibia. AIDS Behav. 2021 Jul 1;25(7):1993–2004.
    
    

27. 27.Lubega M, Nakyaanjo N, Nansubuga S, Hiire E, Kigozi G, Nakigozi G, et al. Risk Denial and Socio-Economic Factors Related to High HIV Transmission in a Fishing Community in Rakai, Uganda: A Qualitative Study. PLoS ONE. 2015 Aug 26;10(8):e0132740.
    
    

28. 28.Ortblad KF, Bardon AR, Mogere P, Kiptinness C, Gakuo S, Mbaire S, et al. Effect of 6-Month HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Dispensing With Interim Self-testing on Preexposure Prophylaxis Continuation at 12 Months: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Jun 15;6(6):e2318590.
    
    

29. 29.Ramraj T, Chirinda W, Jonas K, Govindasamy D, Jama N, Appollis TM, et al. Service delivery models that promote linkages to PrEP for adolescent girls and young women and men in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2023 Mar 1;13(3):e061503.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoiYm1qb3BlbiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTMvMy9lMDYxNTAzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMzAvMjAyNC4wMy4yOS4yNDMwNTA3Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

30. 30.Gombe MM, Cakouros BE, Ncube G, Zwangobani N, Mareke P, Mkwamba A, et al. Key barriers and enablers associated with uptake and continuation of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the public sector in Zimbabwe: Qualitative perspectives of general population clients at high risk for HIV. PLOS ONE. 2020 Jan 13;15(1):e0227632.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0227632&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F30%2F2024.03.29.24305076.atom) 

31. 31.Sila J, Larsen AM, Kinuthia J, Owiti G, Abuna F, Kohler PK, et al. High Awareness, Yet Low Uptake, of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Among Adolescent Girls and Young Women Within Family Planning Clinics in Kenya. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2020 Aug 1;34(8):336–43.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1089/apc.2020.0037&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F30%2F2024.03.29.24305076.atom) 

32. 32.Ssuna B, Katahoire A, Armstrong-Hough M, Kalibbala D, Kalyango JN, Kiweewa FM. Factors associated with willingness to use oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in a fisher-folk community in peri-urban Kampala, Uganda. BMC Public Health. 2022 Mar 9;22:468.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12889-022-12859-w&link_type=DOI) 

33. 33.Yoshioka E, Giovenco D, Kuo C, Underhill K, Hoare J, Operario D. “I’m doing this test so I can benefit from PrEP”: exploring HIV testing barriers/facilitators and implementation of pre-exposure prophylaxis among South African adolescents. Afr J AIDS Res AJAR. 2020 Jul;19(2):101–8.
    
    

34. 34.Haberlen SA, Narasimhan M, Beres LK, Kennedy CE. Integration of Family Planning Services into HIV Care and Treatment Services: A Systematic Review. Stud Fam Plann. 2017;48(2):153–77.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/sifp.12018&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28337766&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F30%2F2024.03.29.24305076.atom) 

35. 35.Askew I, Berer M. The Contribution of Sexual and Reproductive Health Services to the Fight against HIV/AIDS: A Review. Reprod Health Matters. 2003 Jan 1;11(22):51–73.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0968-8080(03)22101-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=14708398&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F30%2F2024.03.29.24305076.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000187020600007&link_type=ISI) 

36. 36.Zhang J, Li C, Xu J, Hu Z, Rutstein SE, Tucker JD, et al. Discontinuation, suboptimal adherence, and reinitiation of oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: a global systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet HIV. 2022 Apr 1;9(4):e254–68.
    
    

37. 37.Ssempijja V, Ssekubugu R, Kigozi G, Nakigozi G, Kagaayi J, Ekstrom AM, et al. DYNAMICS OF PRE-EXPOSURE (PrEP) ELIGIBILITY DUE TO WAXING AND WANING OF HIV RISK IN RAKAI, UGANDA. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2022 May 13;doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000003182.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/QAI.0000000000003182&link_type=DOI) 

38. 38.Ngure K, Friedland BA, Szydlo DW, Roberts ST, Garcia M, Levy L, et al. Baseline preferences for oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or dapivirine intravaginal ring for HIV prevention among adolescent girls and young women in South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe (MTN-034/IPM-045 study). PloS One. 2023;18(6):e0287525.
    
    

39. 39.Wara NJ, Mvududu R, Marwa MM, Gómez L, Mashele N, Orrell C, et al. Preferences and acceptability for long-acting PrEP agents among pregnant and postpartum women with experience using daily oral PrEP in South Africa and Kenya. J Int AIDS Soc. 2023;26(5):e26088.