Knowledge, uptake and intention to use antibiotic post-exposure prophylaxis and meningococcal B vaccine (4CMenB) for gonorrhoea among a large, online community sample of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in the UK ===================================================================================================================================================================================================================================== * Dana Ogaz * Jessica Edney * Dawn Phillips * Dolores Mullen * David Reid * Ruth Wilkie * Erna Buitendam * James Bell * Catherine M Lowndes * Gwenda Hughes * Helen Fifer * Catherine H Mercer * John Saunders * Hamish Mohammed ## Abstract **Introduction** Novel STI prevention interventions, including doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (doxyPEP) and meningococcal B vaccination (4CMenB) against gonorrhoea, have been increasingly examined as tools to aid STI control. There is emerging evidence of the efficacy of doxyPEP in preventing bacterial STIs; however limited data exist on the extent of use in the UK. We examined self-reported knowledge and use of antibiotic post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), and intention to use (ITU) doxyPEP and 4CMenB among a large, community sample of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in the UK. **Methods** Using data collected by the RiiSH survey (November/December 2023), part of a series of online surveys of GBMSM in the UK, we describe (%, [95% CI]) self-reported knowledge and use of antibiotic PEP (including doxyPEP) and doxyPEP and 4CMenB ITU. Using bivariate and multivariable logistic regression, we examined correlates of ever using antibiotic PEP, doxyPEP ITU, and 4CMenB ITU, respectively, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and a composite marker of sexual risk defined as reporting (in the last three months): ≥5 condomless anal sex partners, bacterial STI diagnosis, chemsex, and/or meeting partners at sex-on-premises venues, sex parties, or cruising locations. **Results** Of 1,106 participants (median age: 44 years [IQR: 34-54]), 34% (30%-37%) knew of antibiotic PEP; 8% (6%-10%) ever reported antibiotic PEP use. Among those who did, most reported use in the last year (84%, 73/87) and exclusively used doxycycline (69%, 60/87). Over half of participants reported doxyPEP ITU (51% [47%-56%]) while over two-thirds (64% [60%-69%]) reported 4CMenB ITU. GBMSM with markers of sexual risk and with uptake of other preventative interventions were more likely to report ever using antibiotic PEP as well as doxyPEP and 4CMenB ITU, respectively. HIV-PrEP users and people living with HIV (PLWHIV) were more likely to report STI prophylaxis use and ITU than HIV-negative GBMSM not reporting recent HIV-PrEP use. **Discussion** There were high levels of intended use of novel STI prevention interventions. Fewer than one in ten GBMSM had reported ever using antibiotic PEP, with usage more common among those at greater risk of STIs. Future guidelines and health promotion for 4CMenB and antibiotic PEP must be carefully crafted alongside clinical experts and community partners, given intervention complexity and the risk of presenting conflicting public health messages regarding antimicrobial stewardship. Keywords * STI prevention * GBMSM * doxyPEP * Bexsero * 4CMenB * meningococcal B vaccine * vaccination * antibiotics * UK ## Introduction There have been continued and unprecedented increases in bacterial sexually transmitted infections (STIs) (e.g., chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis) among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in the UK since the early 2000s (1, 2). There has been sustained progress towards HIV elimination through combination prevention interventions, including HIV-PrEP, HIV testing, and Treatment as Prevention (TasP) (3), but controlling transmission of other STIs remains challenging. Novel STI prevention interventions have been increasingly considered to aid STI control in key populations but advocacy for the use of biomedical interventions, including antibiotic prophylaxis and meningococcal B vaccination (4CMenB) for GBMSM, has been mixed. Concerns with widespread implementation include the potential effects on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) selection as well as individual sexual risk perception and resultant behavioural risk compensation (4–6). In the UK, elimination of the 2022 mpox outbreak was jointly achieved with co-produced community messaging and individual-level behavioural change, alongside a targeted vaccination programme. This underlined the importance of a community supported response (7) and rapid deployment interventions as part of a cadre of combination prevention tools (8). However, similar approaches for bacterial STI control have been less effective (9), which highlights a need to consider new and novel prevention interventions as part of modern control measures. The use of self-sourced antibiotics as pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis for STI prevention has been reported in UK GBMSM from as early as 2019 (10, 11), with uptake estimates of 3.6% across a community sample of GBMSM in 2020/2021 (12). Recent studies have shown a reduction in bacterial STI incidence in GBMSM using doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (doxyPEP) (13–17), and a guideline for doxyPEP use in the UK is under development. Observational studies of 4CMenB vaccination for *Neisseria meningitidis* serogroup B bacteria have shown cross-protection against *Neisseria gonorrhoeae* (gonorrhoea) (18). Modelling suggests vaccination for GBMSM at risk can be a cost-effective strategy with significant impact on gonorrhoea incidence, while also conferring community-level benefits that could curb incidence, even within conservative efficacy estimates (19). Real-world effectiveness of 4CMenB has shown a reduction in gonorrhoea incidence of between 22%-47% (14, 20–23). More recently, recommendations of a gonorrhoea vaccination programme using 4CMenB vaccine, primarily (not exclusively) targeting GBMSM, have been made by the UK’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) (24). At the time of writing this article, doxyPEP and 4CMenB vaccination are not yet recommended for STI prevention in the UK. However, in preparation for potential use of these novel STI interventions across SHS, we explored data from the most recent round of a serial, cross-sectional survey of GBMSM in the UK to examine self-reported knowledge, uptake, and regimens used as antibiotic post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for STI prevention. To gauge community interest in these novel STI preventative interventions, we also explored the intention to use doxyPEP and 4CMenB assuming availability, efficacy, and recommendation in the UK. ## Methods ### Study population and data collection We used data collected from the most recent round (November/December 2023) of the ‘Reducing inequalities in Sexual Health’ (RiiSH) surveys: a series of cross-sectional surveys examining the sexual health and well-being of a community sample of GBMSM in the UK. Methods for RiiSH 2023 were adapted from previous study rounds (25, 26). Stakeholder engagement with UK community groups prior to implementation was undertaken to review core questions and inform question additions for the 2023 round. Participants were recruited from 7th November-6th December 2023 through social networking sites (Facebook, Instagram, X) and a geospatial dating application (Grindr). An additional survey link was created for dissemination by voluntary and community networks which was cascaded via social networking sites (hereafter, community-cascaded link). Due to survey hosting limitations, online click-throughs were not captured. GBMSM included in analyses were self-identifying men (cisgender/transgender), transgender women, or gender-diverse individuals assigned male at birth (AMAB), aged ≥16 years, resident in the UK and reporting sex with a man in the last year. We obtained online consent and there was no incentive to participate. Data was collected using the Snap Surveys platform ([www.snapsurveys.com](http://www.snapsurveys.com)). Data management and analysis was conducted using Stata 17.0 (StataCorp LLC). Ethical approval for this study was granted by the UKHSA Research and Ethics Governance Group (REGG; ref: R&D 524). ### Knowledge and use of antibiotics after sex for STI prevention We calculated the percentage (%) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of GBMSM having ever heard of using antibiotic PEP (‘Before taking this survey, had you heard about using antibiotics immediately after sex to prevent STIs other than HIV [e.g., doxy PEP]?’) and those that reported use (‘Have you ever used antibiotics in this way?’). Among those reporting the use of antibiotic PEP, we examined recency of use (‘When did you last use antibiotics in this way?’) and antibiotics ever used. In those who had never used STI prophylaxis, we calculated (%, 95% CI) those who had considered use (‘Have you ever considered taking antibiotics in this way?’) (see Appendix I for questions). ### Correlates of ever using antibiotic post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for STI prevention Using bivariate and multivariable logistic regression, we examined correlates of ever using antibiotic PEP, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics with evidence of association to our outcome and a composite marker of sexual risk defined as reporting (in the last three months): ≥5 condomless anal sex partners, bacterial STI diagnosis, chemsex, and/or meeting partners at sex-on-premises venues, sex parties, or cruising locations, to minimise collinearity in adjusted models. This composite was based on previously described predictors of STI prophylaxis use (10, 12). Correlates examined included markers of sexual risk (behavioural characteristics, sexual partnerships in the last three months), clinical characteristics (HIV status and PrEP use), SHS use in the last year, well-being, and sexual satisfaction indicators. We used mental health and personal well-being indicators derived from the UK ONS that were dichotomised, as per ONS harmonisation standards (27), for measures of low life satisfaction, low life worthwhileness, low happiness, and high anxiety. Agreement (agree/strongly agree) with the statement, ‘I feel satisfied with my sex life’ was used as a measure of sexual satisfaction and based on framing used in the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal) (28). In regression analyses, all p-values less than 5% were considered as evidence of association (i.e., statistically significant). ### Correlates of self-reported intention to use doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (doxyPEP) and 4CMenB All participants were asked about their likelihood (‘Very unlikely’, ‘Somewhat unlikely’, ‘Somewhat likely’, ‘Very likely’, ‘I don’t know’) of doxyPEP uptake, if available and considered safe and effective, and about their likelihood of 4CMenB uptake (referred to as Bexsero in survey questions), if available and with 30-50% effectiveness against gonorrhoea (see Appendix I for questions). We initially aimed to use ordinal logistic regression to assess correlates of ordinal uptake outcomes; However, given heavy skew to the highest positive responses for each intervention, outcome measures were dichotomised (‘Very likely’ vs all else), where intention to use (ITU) was defined as those ‘very likely’ to consider intervention uptake. As per methodology above, we examined correlates of doxyPEP and 4CMenB ITU respectively, using bivariate and multivariable logistic regression. ## Results There were 1,322 GBMSM who completed the RiiSH 2023 survey, of whom, 1,106 met participation criteria and were included in analyses (Appendix II). Half of all participants were recruited from Grindr (50%), followed by Instagram (23%), Facebook (19%), and community-cascaded links (7%). Participants primarily resided in England (85% 941/1,106), were of White ethnicity (89% 984/1,106), and were UK-born (78% 860/1,106). The median age of participants was 44 years (interquartile range: 34-54), with two-thirds reporting degree-level education (62% 691/1,106). Over three-quarters of participants were employed (78% 868/1,106), while less than half (41% 454/1,106) reported being financially comfortable. In the lookback period (i.e., since August 2023), one in five participants had ≥5 male condomless anal sex (CAS) partners (21% 231/1,106) and 8.7% (96/1,106) reported at least one positive bacterial STI test. Additional characteristics are described in Table 1. View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/08/2024.07.08.24310063/T1) Table 1. RiiSH 2023 participant characteristics (n=1,106) ### Knowledge and use of antibiotic post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for STI prevention Over a third (34%, 95% CI: 34%-37% 373/1,106) of all participants had ever heard about using antibiotics after sex for STI prevention; 8% (95% CI: 6%-10% 87/1,106) reported ever having used antibiotic PEP (Figure 1). Among the latter, 84% (73/87) had done so in the last year, where most reported ever using doxycycline (80%, 68/87) and 69% (60/87) specified its exclusive use. One in ten participants were uncertain of which antibiotics they had used previously (11% 10/87), and few reported exclusive azithromycin (2% 2/87) or amoxicillin use (8% 8/87) (Appendix III). In the two-thirds (65% 717/1,106) of GBMSM who had never used antibiotic PEPs, nearly one in five (18% 95% CI: 16%-21% 186/1,019) had ever considered use. ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/07/08/2024.07.08.24310063/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/08/2024.07.08.24310063/F1) Figure 1: Knowledge and uptake of antibiotic post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) among RiiSH 2023 participants (n=1,106) ### Factors associated with ever using antibiotic post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for STI prevention GBMSM with lower education levels (aOR: 0.58 [0.34-0.97] below degree-level vs degree-level) were less likely to report use, while those born outside the UK (aOR: 1.65 [1.01-2.70]), and those reporting or considering other preventative interventions (e.g., mpox vaccination), were more likely to report STI prophylaxis use. HIV-PrEP users and people living with HIV (PLWHIV) were more likely to report STI prophylaxis use than HIV-negative GBMSM not reporting recent HIV-PrEP use (Table 2). View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/08/2024.07.08.24310063/T2) Table 2. Correlates of ever reporting antibiotic post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) use for STI prevention among an online community sample of GBMSM taking part in the RiiSH 2023 survey ### Correlates of intention to use doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (dPEP ITU) Among all participants, 51% (95% CI: 47%-56%, 568/1,106) reported doxyPEP ITU, reaching 68% (95% CI: 60%-69%, 487/713) among those with markers of sexual risk in the last three months. In bivariate analyses, no other sociodemographic characteristics apart from age-group were associated with doxyPEP ITU. Individual markers of sexual risk (comprising our composite measure) were positively associated with doxyPEP ITU (Table 3). View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/08/2024.07.08.24310063/T3) Table 3. Correlates of reporting intention to use doxyPEP (doxyPEP ITU) among an online community sample of GBMSM taking part in the RiiSH 2023 survey In age-adjusted models, positive associations between doxyPEP ITU and HIV status and recent PrEP use remained. Compared to HIV-negative GBMSM without recent PrEP use (in last three months), PLWHIV (aOR 1.74 [1.28-2.57]) and HIV-negative recent PrEP users (aOR 1.40 [1.17-1.84]) reported doxyPEP ITU. GBMSM who had an SHS visit in the last year were more likely to report doxyPEP ITU (aOR: 1.66 [1.29-2.14]) while those reporting high anxiety were less likely (aOR 0.77 [0.80-0.99]). 4CMenB ITU was highly correlated with doxyPEP ITU (aOR 8.93 [6.63-12.1]). GBMSM with markers of sexual risk in the last three months were more likely to report doxyPEP ITU (aOR 1.50 [1.16-1.94]). While we found no association with age in adjusted models, there were indications of decreased doxyPEP ITU in younger age-groups (aOR 0.71 [0.49-1.03] aged 16-29 vs ≥45 years). ### Correlates of intention to use 4CMenB (4CMenB ITU) Over two-thirds of all participants (64%, 713/1,106) reported 4CMenB ITU, increasing to 75% (270/361) among those with markers of sexual risk in the last three months. In bivariate analyses, age-group, sexual orientation, employment status, HIV status and PrEP use, along with most individual markers of sexual risk, were associated with 4CMenB ITU (Table 4). View this table: [Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/08/2024.07.08.24310063/T4) Table 4. Correlates of reporting intention to use 4CMenB (4CMenB ITU) among an online community sample of GBMSM taking part in the RiiSH 2023 survey In models adjusted for associated sociodemographic characteristics and our composite marker of sexual risk, PLWHIV and recent HIV-negative PrEP users were about twice as likely to report 4CMenB ITU compared to HIV-negative GBMSM not reporting recent HIV-PrEP use. Sexual health service use in the last year (aOR 2.45 [1.87-3.21]) and uptake of preventative interventions (e.g. mpox vaccination) were positively associated with 4CMenB ITU, and there was high correlation with doxyPEP ITU (aOR 10.1 [7.33-13.8]). Younger GBMSM were more likely to report 4CMenB ITU (aOR 2.16 [1.44-3.25] aged 16-29 vs ≥45 years), while bisexual-identifying (aOR 0.62 [0.45-0.86]) and those with lower educational qualifications (aOR 0.57 [0.44-0.73]) were less likely to report 4CMenB ITU. GBMSM with composite markers of sexual risk were twice as likely to report ITU (aOR 2.09 [1.56-2.79]). ## Discussion We show that the majority of GBMSM in our community sample would choose to access to doxyPEP and the 4CMenB vaccine were they available and recommended for use in the UK, and that intention to use is greater in those potentially most likely to benefit. Over half of participants (51%) expressed an intention use doxyPEP, with even greater levels (64%) reporting intention to use 4CMenB. While findings demonstrate substantial interest in the use of doxyPEP, fewer than one in ten (8%) GBMSM who responded to this survey reported use of antibiotic PEP, with usage more common among those at greater risk of STIs. These findings, however, are based on small absolute numbers, but update previous estimates of the extent of antibiotic PEP use in GBMSM prior to the publication of the first UK guidelines. Among those using antibiotic PEP, most reported use of appropriate, evidence-based antibiotics for use as post-exposure STI prophylaxis (i.e., doxycycline). However, there were indications of unknown and inappropriate antibiotic use, which is concerning given this may drive AMR as well as cause individual harm, possibly to a greater extent than doxyPEP use. Over a third of all participants reported knowledge of antibiotic PEP for STI prevention, and while few reported uptake, one in five of GBMSM who had not reported use had ever considered taking antibiotics to prevent STIs. Consistent with previous studies (10–12), we found higher uptake of STI prophylaxis in PLWHIV (15%), HIV-PrEP users (12%), and GBMSM at greater risk of STIs as indicated by recent markers of sexual risk (14%). GBMSM with lower levels of education were less likely to report antibiotic PEP use, while prior mpox vaccination uptake was positively associated with use. Compared with a recent study in Germany which estimate doxyPEP uptake in around 20% of GBMSM (29), our sample estimates were lower but this may reflect the wider availability of STI testing in the UK (30, 31). Given the current evidence base, we framed uptake of prophylactic antibiotics around post-exposure use. Questions across behavioural surveys, including prior RiiSH rounds, have included questions about both pre- and post-exposure use. This may limit comparisons with estimates in previous literature and underestimate overall use of STI prophylaxis as STI prevention. Future research, monitoring and evaluation would benefit from a consistent definition, which will itself be facilitated by the upcoming national UK guidelines. Over half of participants indicated doxyPEP ITU. While there was a high correlation between doxyPEP and 4CMenB ITU, a higher proportion of GBMSM - approximately two-thirds - reported 4CMenB ITU. AMR concerns, consistently highlighted in contemporary health settings as part of antimicrobial stewardship initiatives (32), could explain lower doxyPEP ITU. Those reporting high anxiety were less likely to report doxyPEP ITU, which may signal hesitancy arising from AMR worries and reluctance to use antibiotics prophylactically. Similar views were found in a qualitative study of SHS attendees, where there was greater acceptability and support of vaccinations for STI prevention as alternatives to antibiotic prophylaxis use (33). We found levels of 4CMenB ITU were similar to the high self-reported uptake of opportunistically offered Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in SHS among a community sample of GBMSM (34), which may influence greater 4CMenB uptake acceptability. As with STI prophylaxis uptake, PLWHIV, recent HIV-PrEP users, those accessing SHS, and those at greater sexual risk were more likely to report 4CMenB ITU. However, we also found further associations with age and sexual orientation. Younger age-groups were more likely to report 4CMenB ITU, which may present opportunities for further prevention intervention education and uptake in groups with known STI outcome inequalities (35). Like recent vaccination uptake examinations in GBMSM (34, 36), we found differences by socioeconomic characteristics, with lower 4CMenB ITU in those reporting educational qualifications below degree-level; as well as lower ITU among sexual minorities (i.e., bisexual and straight-identifying GBMSM). Inclusive and accessible health promotion and patient education surrounding novel STI prevention interventions, especially considering self- sourcing of antibiotics, will be imperative to minimise knowledge and uptake inequalities and to clearly inform risks in balance of benefits to STI prophylaxis use. ## Limitations This cross-sectional study is subject to limitations. Our sample population likely experiences higher levels of sexual risk relative to the wider population of GBMSM in the UK (37, 38). We aimed to recruit from a broader spectrum of GBMSM who likely have differing sexual risk relative to clinic recruited samples. ITU measures may not equate to uptake in practice but help gauge interest and acceptability among GBMSM who would likely comprise targeted groups for these interventions. Dichotomising outcome measures limits interpretation and could have led to conservative ITU estimates. While we posited that sexual satisfaction could be influenced by actual or intended uptake of STI prevention interventions, we found no evidence of association, though larger studies are needed to examine the role of uptake on more holistic measures of sexual satisfaction and well-being. We collected no personal identifiers to facilitate the reporting of sensitive data on sexual behaviours; however, survey responses may be subject to social acceptability bias. Sample selection could be subject to digital exclusion, and we do not know how representative our study sample is of GBMSM using social networking and dating applications. However, consistent methodology and community-partnered implementation are strengths of this long-running survey series and consistently aid the characterisation of behavioural risk, currently absent from available national STI surveillance, as well as actual and intended preventative intervention uptake among key populations in the UK. ## Implications Findings from this study illustrate a community sample of GBMSM with considerable interest in the use of novel biomedical STI interventions, which is not dissimilar to the high uptake seen of HIV-PrEP and other STI and viral hepatitis vaccination in UK GBMSM. As seen in the PrEP Impact Trial, an implementation trial assessing HIV-PrEP eligibility and uptake in the UK from 2017-2020 (39), eligibility for trial places quickly outstripped availability at the onset of the trial (10,000, increasing to 26,000), largely attributable to early knowledge and engagement facilitated by community organisations (40, 41). A significant proportion of our community sample indicated likely uptake of these preventative interventions with high correlation of ITU for both, signalling the benefit of shared education and offer of prevention interventions within SHS or outreach settings. GBMSM at greater risk of STIs were more likely to report ever using STI prophylaxis as well as doxyPEP and 4CMenB ITU, suggesting an appropriate assessment of personal sexual risk, however, we did find potential sociodemographic and SHS engagement-based uptake differences common in uptake of other preventative interventions such as mpox vaccination and HIV-PrEP. While there is no recommendation for the use of doxyPEP as STI prevention in the UK at the time of writing, there are early indications of knowledge of antibiotic PEP, as well as uptake among GBMSM through private or off-license purchasing. Community-led knowledge mobilisation efforts (42) have likely boosted awareness of evidence-based uptake regimens associated with STI incidence declines in GBMSM, now recommended in some US cities (43). At present, the upcoming UK doxyPEP guidelines will likely influence the decision of implementation across SHS. Also, the JCVI recommendation for a targeted opportunistic gonorrhoea vaccination programme using 4CMenB is awaiting approval by health ministers in the UK. ## Conclusion While regular testing, condom promotion, and treatment as prevention remain an integral foundation to STI prevention in the UK, these approaches have not curbed rapid increases in STI diagnoses among GBMSM and other key populations in the last decade. Novel prevention interventions should be considered to supplement existing control strategies. As adoption of doxyPEP, 4CMenB vaccination and other interventions across SHS is considered in the UK, future guidelines and health promotion messaging must be carefully crafted alongside clinical experts and community partners given intervention complexity, implications to sexual behaviour and AMR selection, and the risk of presenting conflicting public health messages regarding antibiotic stewardship. Robust monitoring and evaluation will be crucial to understand the impact of doxyPEP and 4CMenB use on AMR and STI incidence in key populations if rolled out across SHS. Given lessons learned from the implementation of HIV prevention interventions, the magnitude of community interest and uptake must not be underestimated and there will be a need to ensure equitable access to these interventions to those in greatest need (24). There will be a similar need for equity considerations in health promotion, patient education and uptake across different service models, including those delivered primarily online, depending on local need. Minimising knowledge and potential accessibility barriers for those who may benefit from future STI preventative interventions must be considered from the outset of planning and embedded in implementation and monitoring to limit health inequalities and to facilitate empowered decision-making that benefits individual-level sexual wellbeing and autonomy. ## Supporting information Appendices I, II, III [[supplements/310063_file02.pdf]](pending:yes) ## Data availability statement The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). Requests can be directed to Dr Hamish Mohammed (riish_survey{at}ukhsa.gov.uk). ## Funding This study did not receive any funding; however, David Reid and Catherine H Mercer were funded as part of The National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Blood Borne and Sexually Transmitted Infections at University College London in partnership with the UK Health Security Agency. ## Ethical approval Young people aged 16-17 years were eligible to participate in this survey as this group represent a key population at risk of STI acquisition in the UK and are important to include in this research. Parental consent of participants aged 18 or younger was not sought. Ethical guidelines produced by the British Psychological Society and General Medical Council suggest consent from parents should be sought for those under age 16 and that those aged 16 and over may be presumed to be able to reach informed consent if the information on the study, and the way that data is collected, stored, and used is clear (1,2). This information is included for all potential participants at the beginning of the survey. Ethical approval of this study was provided by the UKHSA Research and Ethics Governance Group (REGG; ref: R&D 524). Online informed consent was received from all participants and all methods were performed in accordance with guidelines and regulations set by the UKHSA REGG. 1. Oates, J., Carpenter, D., Fisher, M., Goodson, S., Hannah, B., Kwiatkowski, R., Prutton, K., Reeves, D., & Wainwright, T. (2021). BPS code of human research ethics 2. General Medical Council. (2018). 0-18 years: guidance for all doctors. Making Decisions – Assessing the capacity to consent. ## Competing interests Authors have no competing interests to declare. ## Acknowledgements We thank Elizabeth Fearon (University College London), Takudzwa Mukiwa (Terrence Higgins Trust), Will Nutland (The Love Tank) and Benjamin Weil (The Love Tank) for their review and contributions to the RiiSH 2023 survey. We thank Emmanuel Musah for review of our draft manuscript. We acknowledge members of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Blood Borne and Sexually Transmitted Infections (BBSTI) Steering Committee: Caroline Sabin, John Saunders, Catherine H. Mercer, Hamish Mohammed (previously Gwenda Hughes), Greta Rait, Ruth Simmons, William Rosenberg, Tamyo Mbisa, Rosalind Raine, Sema Mandal, Rosamund Yu, Samreen Ijaz, Fabiana Lorencatto, Rachel Hunter, Kirsty Foster and Mamooma Tahir. ## Footnotes * dana.ogaz{at}ukhsa.gov.uk, jessica.edney{at}ukhsa.gov.uk, dawn.phillips{at}ukhsa.gov.uk, dolores.mullen{at}ukhsa.gov.uk, david.reid{at}ucl.ac.uk, ruth.wilkie{at}wales.nhs.uk, erna.buitendam{at}ukhsa.gov.uk, james.bell{at}ukhsa.gov.uk, kathy.lowndes{at}ukhsa.gov.uk, gwenda.hughes{at}lshtm.ac.uk, helen.fifer{at}ukhsa.gov.uk, c.mercer{at}ucl.ac.uk, john.saunders{at}uksa.gov.uk, hamish.mohammed{at}ukhsa.gov.uk * Received July 8, 2024. * Revision received July 8, 2024. * Accepted July 8, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Migchelsen S, Enayat Q, Harb A, Daahir U, Slater L, Anderson A, et al. Sexually transmitted infections and screening for chlamydia in England, 2022: UK Health Security Agency, London; 2023 [Available from: [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/sexually-transmitted-infections-stis-annual-data-tables/sexually-transmitted-infections-and-screening-for-chlamydia-in-england-2022-report](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/sexually-transmitted-infections-stis-annual-data-tables/sexually-transmitted-infections-and-screening-for-chlamydia-in-england-2022-report). 2. 2.Mohammed H, Blomquist P, Ogaz D, Duffell S, Furegato M, Checchi M, et al. 100 years of STIs in the UK: a review of national surveillance data. Sex Transm Infect. 2018;94(8):553–8. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoic2V4dHJhbnMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiOTQvOC81NTMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wOC8yMDI0LjA3LjA4LjI0MzEwMDYzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 3. 3.Brown AE, Nash S, Connor N, Kirwan PD, Ogaz D, Croxford S, et al. Towards elimination of HIV transmission, AIDS and HIV-related deaths in the UK. HIV Med. 2018. 4. 4.Kong FYS, Kenyon C, Unemo M. Important considerations regarding the widespread use of doxycycline chemoprophylaxis against sexually transmitted infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2023;78(7):1561–8. 5. 5.Grant JS, Stafylis C, Celum C, Grennan T, Haire B, Kaldor J, et al. Doxycycline Prophylaxis for Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(6):1247–53. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/ciz866&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24310063.atom) 6. 6.Traeger MW, Mayer KH, Krakower DS, Gitin S, Jenness SM, Marcus JL. Potential impact of doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis prescribing strategies on incidence of bacterial sexually transmitted infections. Clin Infect Dis. 2023. 7. 7.UK Health Security Agency. Mpox and sexual health: outreach and engagement fund 2022 [cited 2024 10 May]. Available from: [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mpox-and-sexual-health-outreach-and-engagement-fund](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mpox-and-sexual-health-outreach-and-engagement-fund). 8. 8.Zhang X-S, Mandal S, Mohammed H, Turner C, Florence I, Walker J, et al. Transmission dynamics and effect of control measures on the 2022 outbreak of mpox among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in England: a mathematical modelling study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2024;24(1):65–74. 9. 9.Kenyon C, Herrmann B, Hughes G, de Vries HJC. Management of asymptomatic sexually transmitted infections in Europe: towards a differentiated, evidence-based approach. The Lancet Regional Health - Europe. 2023;34:100743. 10. 10.O’Halloran C, Croxford S, Mohammed H, Gill ON, Hughes G, Fifer H, et al. Factors associated with reporting antibiotic use as STI prophylaxis among HIV PrEP users: findings from a cross-sectional online community survey, May-July 2019, UK. Sex Transm Infect. 2021;97(6):429–33. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoic2V4dHJhbnMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiOTcvNi80MjkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wOC8yMDI0LjA3LjA4LjI0MzEwMDYzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 11. 11.Ogaz D, Logan L, Curtis TJ, McDonagh L, Guerra L, Bradshaw D, et al. PrEP use and unmet PrEP-need among men who have sex with men in London prior to the implementation of a national PrEP programme, a cross-sectional study from June to August 2019. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1105. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12889-022-13425-0&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24310063.atom) 12. 12.Kohli M, Reid D, Pulford CV, Howarth A, Brown J, Mohammed H, et al. Choice of antibiotics for prophylaxis of bacterial STIs among individuals currently self-sourcing. Sex Transm Infect. 2022;98(2):158. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoic2V4dHJhbnMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiOTgvMi8xNTgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wOC8yMDI0LjA3LjA4LjI0MzEwMDYzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 13. 13.Molina JM, Charreau I, Chidiac C, Pialoux G, Cua E, Delaugerre C, et al. Post-exposure prophylaxis with doxycycline to prevent sexually transmitted infections in men who have sex with men: an open-label randomised substudy of the ANRS IPERGAY trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(3):308–17. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30725-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24310063.atom) 14. 14.Molina JM, Berçot B, Assoumou L, Algarte-Genin M, Rubenstein E, Pialoux G, et al. Final Results of ANRS 174 DOXYVAC: A Randomized trial to Prevent STIs in MSM on PrEP Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Denver, Colorado 2024 [updated 2024 March; cited 2024 01 May]. Available from: [https://www.croiconference.org/abstract/final-results-of-anrs-174-doxyvac-a-randomized-trial-to-prevent-sti-in-msm-on-prep/](https://www.croiconference.org/abstract/final-results-of-anrs-174-doxyvac-a-randomized-trial-to-prevent-sti-in-msm-on-prep/). 15. 15.Luetkemeyer AF, Donnell D, Dombrowski JC, Cohen S, Grabow C, Brown CE, et al. Postexposure Doxycycline to Prevent Bacterial Sexually Transmitted Infections. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(14):1296–306. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa2211934&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=37018493&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24310063.atom) 16. 16.Luetkemeyer A, Donnell D, Cohen S, Dombrowski J, Grabow C, Brown C, et al. Sustained Reduction of Bacterial STIs During the DoxyPEP Study Open-Label Extension Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Denver, Colorado 2024 [updated 2024 March; cited 2024 01 May]. Available from: [https://www.croiconference.org/abstract/sustained-reduction-of-bacterial-stis-during-the-doxypep-study-open-label-extension/](https://www.croiconference.org/abstract/sustained-reduction-of-bacterial-stis-during-the-doxypep-study-open-label-extension/). 17. 17.Sankaran M, Glidden D, Kohn R, Liebi C, Torres T, Buchbinder S, et al. Doxy-PEP Associated With Declines in Chlamydia and Syphilis in MSM and Trans Women in San Francisco Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Denver, Colorado 2024 [updated 2024 March; cited 2024 01 May]. Available from: [https://www.croiconference.org/abstract/doxy-pep-associated-with-declines-in-chlamydia-and-syphilis-in-msm-and-trans-women-in-san-francisco/](https://www.croiconference.org/abstract/doxy-pep-associated-with-declines-in-chlamydia-and-syphilis-in-msm-and-trans-women-in-san-francisco/). 18. 18.Leduc I, Connolly KL, Begum A, Underwood K, Darnell S, Shafer WM, et al. The serogroup B meningococcal outer membrane vesicle-based vaccine 4CMenB induces cross-species protection against Neisseria gonorrhoeae. PLOS Pathogens. 2020;16(12):e1008602. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.ppat.1008602&link_type=DOI) 19. 19.Whittles LK, Didelot X, White PJ. Public health impact and cost-effectiveness of gonorrhoea vaccination: an integrated transmission-dynamic health-economic modelling analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22(7):1030–41. 20. 20.Ladhani SN, White PJ, Campbell H, Mandal S, Borrow R, Andrews N, et al. Use of a meningococcal group B vaccine (4CMenB) in populations at high risk of gonorrhoea in the UK. Lancet Infect Dis. 2024. 21. 21.Abara WE, Bernstein KT, Lewis FMT, Schillinger JA, Feemster K, Pathela P, et al. Effectiveness of a serogroup B outer membrane vesicle meningococcal vaccine against gonorrhoea: a retrospective observational study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2022;22(7):1021–9. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24310063.atom) 22. 22.Petousis-Harris H, Paynter J, Morgan J, Saxton P, McArdle B, Goodyear-Smith F, Black S. Effectiveness of a group B outer membrane vesicle meningococcal vaccine against gonorrhoea in New Zealand: a retrospective case-control study. The Lancet. 2017;390(10102):1603–10. 23. 23.Wang B, Giles L, Andraweera P, McMillan M, Almond S, Beazley R, et al. 4CMenB sustained vaccine effectiveness against invasive meningococcal B disease and gonorrhoea at three years post programme implementation. Journal of Infection. 2023;87(2):95–102. 24. 24.Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. JCVI advice on the use of meningococcal B vaccination for the prevention of gonorrhoea 2023 [cited 2024 04 April]. Available from: [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/meningococcal-b-vaccination-for-the-prevention-of-gonorrhoea-jcvi-advice-10-november/jcvi-advice-on-the-use-of-meningococcal-b-vaccination-for-the-prevention-of-gonorrhoea](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/meningococcal-b-vaccination-for-the-prevention-of-gonorrhoea-jcvi-advice-10-november/jcvi-advice-on-the-use-of-meningococcal-b-vaccination-for-the-prevention-of-gonorrhoea). 25. 25.Wayal S, Reid D, Weatherburn P, Blomquist P, Fabiane S, Hughes G, Mercer CH. Association between knowledge, risk behaviours, and testing for sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men: findings from a large online survey in the United Kingdom. HIV medicine. 2019;20(8):523–33. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24310063.atom) 26. 26.Howarth A, Saunders J, Reid D, Kelly I, Wayal S, Weatherburn P, et al. ‘Stay at home …’: exploring the impact of the COVID-19 public health response on sexual behaviour and health service use among men who have sex with men: findings from a large online survey in the UK. Sexually Transmitted Infections. 2022;98(5):346. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoic2V4dHJhbnMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiOTgvNS8zNDYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wOC8yMDI0LjA3LjA4LjI0MzEwMDYzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 27. 27.Office for National Statistics. Personal well-being user guidance 2018 [Available from: [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/methodologies/personalwellbeingsurveyuserguide](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/methodologies/personalwellbeingsurveyuserguide). 28. 28.Mercer CH, Tanton C, Prah P, Erens B, Sonnenberg P, Clifton S, et al. Changes in sexual attitudes and lifestyles in Britain through the life course and over time: findings from the National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal). The Lancet. 2013;382(9907):1781–94. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24310063.atom) 29. 29.Hornuss D, Mathé P, Usadel S, Zimmermann S, Müller M, Rieg S. Already current practice? A snapshot survey on doxycycline use for prevention of sexually transmitted infections in parts of the German MSM community. Infection. 2023;51(6):1831–4. 30. 30.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. EMIS-2017 The European Men-Who-Have Sex-With-Men Internet Survey: Key findings from 50 countries 2019 [cited 2024 01 May]. Available from: [https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/European-MSM-internet-survey-2017-findings.pdf](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/European-MSM-internet-survey-2017-findings.pdf). 31. 31.Doran J, Weatherburn P, Hickson F, Marcus U, Reid D, Schmidt AJ. An update on the performance of STI services for gay and bisexual men across European cities: results from the 2017 European MSM Internet Survey. Sex Transm Infect. 2021;97(3):201–8. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoic2V4dHJhbnMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiOTcvMy8yMDEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wOC8yMDI0LjA3LjA4LjI0MzEwMDYzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 32. 32.Chaintarli K, Ingle SM, Bhattacharya A, Ashiru-Oredope D, Oliver I, Gobin M. Impact of a United Kingdom-wide campaign to tackle antimicrobial resistance on self-reported knowledge and behaviour change. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:1–9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12889-016-3110-1&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26728978&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F07%2F08%2F2024.07.08.24310063.atom) 33. 33.King AJ, Bilardi JE, Maddaford K, Fairley CK, Chow EPF, Phillips TR. Sexual health clinic attendees’ views on antibiotic post-exposure prophylaxis and vaccinations for sexually transmitted infections prevention: A qualitative study. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2024;38:102628. 34. 34.Baldry G, Phillips D, Wilkie R, Checchi M, Folkard K, Simmons R, et al. Factors associated with human papillomavirus, hepatitis A, hepatitis B and mpox vaccination uptake among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in the UK – findings from the large community-based RiiSH-Mpox survey. medRxiv. 2024:2024.03.08.24303981. 35. 35.Fountain H, Migchelsen SJ, Charles H, Ram T, Fifer H, Mohammed H, Sinka K. Rebound of Gonorrhea after Lifting of COVID-19 Preventive Measures, England. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024;30(2):329–32. 36. 36.Ogaz D, Enayat Q, Brown JRG, Phillips D, Wilkie R, Jayes D, et al. Mpox Diagnosis, Behavioral Risk Modification, and Vaccination Uptake among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men, United Kingdom, 2022. Emerg Infect Dis. 2024;30(5). 37. 37.Prah P, Hickson F, Bonell C, McDaid LM, Johnson AM, Wayal S, et al. Men who have sex with men in Great Britain: comparing methods and estimates from probability and convenience sample surveys. Sex Transm Infect. 2016;92(6):455–63. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoic2V4dHJhbnMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiOTIvNi80NTUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wOC8yMDI0LjA3LjA4LjI0MzEwMDYzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 38. 38.Cabecinha M, Mercer CH, Gravningen K, Aicken C, Jones KG, Tanton C, et al. Finding sexual partners online: prevalence and associations with sexual behaviour, STI diagnoses and other sexual health outcomes in the British population. Sex Transm Infect. 2017;93(8):572–82. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoic2V4dHJhbnMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiOTMvOC81NzIiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wNy8wOC8yMDI0LjA3LjA4LjI0MzEwMDYzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 39. 39.Sullivan AK, Saunders J, Desai M, Cartier A, Mitchell HD, Jaffer S, et al. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis and its implementation in the PrEP Impact Trial in England: a pragmatic health technology assessment. Lancet HIV. 2023;10(12):e790–e806. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S2352-3018(23)00256-4&link_type=DOI) 40. 40.PrEPster. 2024 [cited 2024 04 April]. Available from: [https://prepster.info/](https://prepster.info/). 41. 41.I Want PrEP Now. 2024 [cited 2024 21 April]. Available from: [https://www.iwantprepnow.co.uk/](https://www.iwantprepnow.co.uk/). 42. 42.Queer Health Info. doxyPEP 2024 [cited 2024 21 April]. Available from: [https://www.queerhealth.info/projects/doxypep](https://www.queerhealth.info/projects/doxypep). 43. 43.San Francisco Department of Public Health. Doxycycline Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Reduces Incidence of Sexually Transmitted Infections 2022 [Available from: [https://www.sfcdcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Health-Update-Doxycycline-Post-Exposure-Prophylaxis-Reduces-Incidence-of-Sexually-Transmitted-Infections-SFDPH-FINAL-10.20.2022.pdf](https://www.sfcdcp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Health-Update-Doxycycline-Post-Exposure-Prophylaxis-Reduces-Incidence-of-Sexually-Transmitted-Infections-SFDPH-FINAL-10.20.2022.pdf).