Executive evidence brief | August 20, 2026
Southern HIV/AIDS Awareness Day 2026: Build a Stigma-Free HIV Access System
Awareness is credible when leaders remove the operational barriers between information, testing, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, viral suppression, and long-term well-being.
Observance verification. Southern HIV/AIDS Awareness Day is observed each August 20. The day was founded by the Southern AIDS Coalition to increase awareness, reduce stigma, and advocate for resources and solutions that respond to HIV in the Southern United States.
The leadership signal
Move awareness from message to reliable access
Southern HIV/AIDS Awareness Day creates a clear leadership test. Can an adult move from a trusted invitation to an appropriate HIV service without encountering stigma, avoidable delay, fragmented ownership, unaffordable requirements, privacy risk, or a handoff that quietly fails? A health system can publish accurate information and still leave that route unreliable. The observance becomes operational when executives examine the complete experience from first question through prevention or durable treatment.
The work begins with language and dignity. HIV is a health condition, not a moral judgment. People should not be reduced to a diagnosis, a transmission category, a demographic label, or a presumed behavior. Leaders can set a visible standard for person-first, identity-respecting communication; protect confidentiality; make services welcoming; and create a response route when a patient, staff member, or community partner reports stigma or discrimination.
Recent qualitative research with aging HIV-positive same-gender-loving Black men in the U.S. South describes resilience through assertive communication, humor, reframing, collective care, community, and agency.1 The focus-group study centers lived experience but does not estimate prevalence or rank interventions. Its executive meaning is not that people should be expected to overcome weak systems. It is that health organizations should recognize existing community knowledge and build services with, not merely for, the people who use them.
Reliable access requires more than a single clinic. It depends on trusted community partners, public health, primary and specialty care, laboratories, pharmacies, benefits and finance teams, transportation, digital access, referral coordination, data stewardship, workforce capability, and executive governance. Each interface can create delay or protect continuity. The leader's job is to make those interfaces visible, assign ownership, and learn from the people who encounter them.
An exploratory pre-post evaluation of 98 leaders in Southern HIV service organizations found improvement in self-reported implementation leadership scores after equity-centered capacity-building programs.2 There was no comparison group, and the study did not establish patient outcomes. It still highlights a practical point: implementation leadership is a capability that organizations can support, assess, and strengthen. Good intentions do not automatically produce a reliable service.
The executive aim is a stigma-free HIV access system. That system offers accurate information without assumptions, makes testing and prevention reachable, connects a diagnosis to timely care, supports treatment and long-term well-being, respects patient choice, protects privacy, and gives trusted community partners decision authority. It also measures handoffs and unresolved barriers instead of counting awareness activities as if they proved access.
Protect dignity
Use respectful language, confidential processes, affirming environments, and a credible response to reported stigma.
Offer a route
Connect information, testing, prevention, diagnosis, linkage, treatment, and long-term support through verified handoffs.
Share authority
Give community organizations and people with lived experience funded roles in design, governance, feedback, and review.
Measure continuity
Use locally defined denominators, stratified learning, narrative context, and action closure instead of unsupported rankings.
Trust and community authority
Design with the people whose trust the system must earn
Trust is not a communications asset that can be manufactured after a service has been designed. It is a judgment people make about institutional behavior. A health organization earns trust when it protects privacy, explains options honestly, respects identity and autonomy, responds to harm, keeps commitments, and allows community knowledge to change operations. An awareness campaign that increases attention without increasing these protections can make risk more visible without making help more reachable.
A qualitative study of Black women in the South explored PrEP contemplation through 12 semi-structured interviews. None of the participants had started PrEP by the interview; themes included relationship context, awareness and knowledge, trust, cost, and communication with providers.3 This small qualitative sample cannot represent all Black women or predict uptake. It identifies questions an executive team can test locally: Is information understandable and relevant? Can people discuss prevention without being stereotyped? Are cost and coverage explained? Do clinicians have time and support for shared decision making?
A Nashville qualitative study retained 17 interviews with Black men who have sex with men and described resilience resources at individual, interpersonal, institutional, and structural levels.5 Because themes are contextual and unranked, they should not be turned into a checklist of personal traits. The organizational implication is to strengthen affirming professional services, supportive networks, community education, and advocacy while removing conditions that make people carry the full burden of adaptation.
In Alabama, focus groups with 10 sexual minority men and interviews with six sexual health providers found that crowdsourcing to develop PrEP promotions was acceptable when identity, resources, logistics, shame, and social context were addressed.6 This formative work did not test whether a campaign changed PrEP use. It supports a better design process: pay people for expertise, provide practical participation resources, specify how ideas will be selected, protect privacy, and show what community input changed.
Healthcare executives can convert participation into governance by naming decision rights. Community representatives should know which decisions they can initiate, change, pause, or escalate. Their time should be funded. Data and meeting materials should be accessible. Disagreement should not threaten contracts or access. Feedback should receive an acknowledgment, an accountable owner, a due date, and a response that explains whether the organization acted and why.
Affirming care also deserves system attention. An observational cohort of 954 LGBTQ+ adults ages 50 to 76 in Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and North Carolina identified three patterns of reported care experiences. Compared with those reporting affirming care, people in the neutral-care pattern were 12.4 percentage points less likely to report lifetime HIV testing and 17.1 percentage points less likely to report recent HIV testing.14 The associations do not prove that the care pattern caused the testing difference, and the sample does not represent every LGBTQ+ adult. The findings reinforce that neutrality may not be experienced as safety. Leaders should define what affirming, respectful care looks like in observable behaviors, workflow, privacy, environment, and accountability.
Black women living with HIV and multimorbidity offered four themes in 29 qualitative interviews: elevating lived experience, basic human support, culturally congruent care, and capacity building.15 Those recommendations should not be treated as a universal preference survey. They support a leadership discipline that values coordinated human support alongside clinical services and treats people with lived experience as experts in intervention design.
The access pathway
Build one visible route from awareness to long-term well-being
HIV programs are often reviewed as separate activities: campaign reach, tests performed, PrEP prescriptions, new diagnoses, visits, laboratory monitoring, or pharmacy fills. Each measure can be useful. None proves that a person completed the next step. A reliable pathway follows transitions, because the gap between services is where ownership often disappears.
The pathway starts before a clinical encounter. A trusted community organization, outreach worker, clinician, digital channel, or personal relationship may create the first opportunity to ask a question. The next step should not require a person to reveal more than is necessary, navigate multiple disconnected phone numbers, repeat sensitive information, or understand complex eligibility rules without help. Leaders should make the first contact easy to find, private, respectful, and connected to a real service.
Figure 1. Proposed stigma-free HIV access pathway
A cross-sectional pilot assessment for HPTN 096 enrolled 422 Black gay and bisexual men in Dallas, Houston, Montgomery, and Greenville through starfish sampling. HIV status was determined for 403 participants; 212 were living with HIV, and 163 of those participants reported being in care.12 The recruitment method and four-community design mean these values are not population prevalence estimates. The study demonstrates why executives should examine the route after identification, including care engagement and viral suppression, without treating a cross-sectional snapshot as a causal evaluation.
Continuity also differs by age and context. An observational analysis of 746 male participants in a Southern academic medical center program found that older age was associated with greater likelihood of viral suppression after adjustment, and younger men who have sex with men were less likely to be suppressed than older peers.7 The male-only, single-program sample limits generalization, and associations do not establish cause. The operational response should be learning, not stereotyping: stratify local measures, ask younger participants about barriers and preferences, and test targeted supports with them.
| Transition | Evidence of completion | Accountable owner | Hold or escalation trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invitation to service | Private contact route, service availability, language support, and eligibility information verified | Outreach or community partnership lead | Unreachable service, inaccurate message, privacy concern, or excluded population |
| Testing to next step | Result communicated through the agreed process and prevention or care appointment offered when appropriate | Testing program lead and navigator | No result pathway, no receiving capacity, or patient cannot use offered route |
| Prevention start or continuation | Chosen option, required clinical review, coverage, supply, follow-up, and question route confirmed | Prevention program owner | Procurement delay, affordability barrier, missed follow-up, or choice not available |
| Diagnosis to care | Receiving appointment, navigator contact, record transfer, transport plan, and barrier review confirmed | Linkage coordinator | No acceptance, repeated reschedule, record failure, or unresolved access barrier |
| Care to durable well-being | Treatment access, laboratory follow-up, pharmacy continuity, patient-defined support, and retention review documented | Longitudinal care team | Medication interruption, missed critical monitoring, disengagement signal, or unaddressed stigma |
Applicability note: This ledger proposes executive controls for handoffs. It does not define clinical eligibility, timing, treatment, testing, or monitoring. Organizations should align workflow with current authoritative guidance, patient consent, and local requirements.
Transitions following incarceration require particular attention to timing, privacy, coverage, transportation, and competing reentry needs. A case study used interviews, focus groups, a community summit, implementation mapping, and the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment framework to design a jail-to-community PrEP strategy in a Southern city.9 The paper describes strategy design and planned evaluation, not established effectiveness. It supports involving formerly incarcerated people, jail clinicians, community organizations, and PrEP providers before defining the handoff.
Transportation and digital access can preserve or break continuity. A South Carolina mixed-methods study surveyed 160 people living with HIV who reported transportation vulnerability and interviewed 20 participants before a concierge rideshare intervention. Participants generally viewed the service favorably but raised cost and privacy concerns.10 These are perceptions, not effectiveness results. A separate qualitative study with 27 key informants found internet access and technology literacy challenges for older adults with HIV in the rural South and suggested that audio-only options may fit some preferences.11 Neither solution should become a default imposed on everyone. Offer choices, test privacy, assess usability, and measure whether the option completed the care step.
Prevention choice and readiness
Make prevention a supported choice, not a navigation test
PrEP access depends on more than awareness. A person may need a knowledgeable clinician, an affirming conversation, appropriate laboratory services, timely medication procurement, coverage support, follow-up, and a route for questions or changing preferences. A health system that asks patients to discover and connect those parts on their own turns a prevention option into a persistence test.
A 2026 cross-sectional survey of 102 healthcare providers at a medical school and affiliated hospital in North Louisiana reported that 27.5 percent had ever prescribed PrEP and 48 percent had never discussed it with patients. The most frequently reported barriers were lack of provider training at 84.3 percent and absence of clinical guidelines at 68.6 percent.4 These categories overlap and are not parts of one whole. The single regional academic setting, self-report, and cross-sectional design limit generalization and do not establish causality. The study provides a useful local example of the readiness gap leaders can assess.
Figure 2. Reported PrEP practice and barriers in a North Louisiana provider survey
| Survey item | Reported proportion |
|---|---|
| Ever prescribed PrEP | 27.5% |
| Never discussed PrEP with patients | 48.0% |
| Lack of provider training reported as a barrier | 84.3% |
| Absence of clinical guidelines reported as a barrier | 68.6% |
The leadership response should connect education with operating conditions. Training that does not change decision support, referral pathways, consultation access, documentation, coverage, procurement, follow-up, or accountability may increase knowledge while leaving the service difficult to deliver. Leaders can define who should be ready to discuss prevention, which clinicians prescribe, how colleagues obtain support, how people enter the service, and which barriers trigger escalation.
Long-acting injectable cabotegravir adds a useful implementation lesson. A safety-net primary care center in the U.S. South described multidisciplinary workflow, procurement, care coordination, registry adaptation, initiation, and persistence. Of 221 referred individuals, 77 initiated the program; reported barriers included intake scheduling delay, declining the option, and delayed medication procurement.8 This single-center observational implementation report does not establish comparative effectiveness or a universal conversion target. It shows that a medication option becomes available only when the surrounding workflow is ready.
A cross-sectional survey of 123 current or former PrEP users at an urban Southern clinic found that 56.1 percent preferred an injection over a daily oral pill, while participants reported concerns about side effects and medication or visit costs.16 The convenience sample, clinic context, and current or former user eligibility limit generalization. Preference should not be turned into a single default. The operational standard is informed choice among appropriate options, transparent discussion of requirements and costs, and reliable support for the option a patient chooses.
A cross-sectional Alabama survey of 305 young Black gay and bisexual men found distinct associations with never, previous, and current PrEP use across knowledge, social support, perceived risk, transportation, income, housing, religiosity, stigma, and other contextual factors.13 The study cannot establish causal pathways, and some estimates had wide confidence intervals. It supports a multilevel response instead of attributing use to motivation alone. Access improvement may require transportation, benefits support, affirming services, social support, and better information alongside clinical readiness.
Failure analysis
Find the conditions that make people disengage
When prevention or care is interrupted, organizations often document the final event: no appointment, no medication start, missed visit, no laboratory result, or loss to follow-up. The final event is not the full cause. A useful review asks what conditions accumulated across trust, workforce, access, finance, technology, coordination, and community authority. It includes the person who experienced the route and avoids assigning blame to the individual.
Figure 3. Why people disengage before prevention or durable care
The fishbone should lead to a focused review, not a generic list. Choose one observed failure or fragile transition. Define the population, period, service, and expected handoff. Bring in the people who experienced the route, including community partners and front-line staff. Separate confirmed facts from assumptions. Identify where the organization controls the cause and where an external partner, payer, vendor, or public authority must act.
Do not use a missed visit as the automatic root cause of poor continuity. A missed visit is an event. Its context may include a rescheduled shift, lack of transport, unsafe disclosure risk, a phone number change, a broadband problem, a confusing reminder, a coverage request, a prior stigmatizing encounter, or a receiving clinic that could not accept the handoff. The corrective action should address the condition, not merely send another reminder.
Leaders should also examine positive deviance. Which people and teams completed a difficult route, and what conditions helped? The answer may reveal a trusted navigator, flexible scheduling, rapid benefits support, a community partner, a warm handoff, a simple phone option, or a pharmacist who resolved procurement. Protect that learning from becoming invisible work that depends on one person.
The operating model
Govern the interfaces around one community-informed compact
A stigma-free access system needs a forum with authority to see the whole route. Existing population health, quality, ambulatory operations, community benefit, infectious disease, public health, or executive structures may provide that forum. The name is less important than the ability to connect decisions across community partnerships, clinical care, navigation, pharmacy, laboratory services, finance, digital access, transportation, workforce, privacy, data, and accountability.
Figure 4. Stigma-free HIV access operating system
Patient and community feedback, incomplete handoffs, wait time, denials, procurement delays, privacy concerns, stigma reports, and workforce signals return to every interface for review and correction.
The compact should name an executive sponsor and an operational owner. It should also reserve real authority for trusted community partners and people with lived experience. A clinical lead cannot own transportation funding. A navigator cannot fix procurement alone. A community organization should not be expected to absorb an unfunded handoff. The compact identifies which interface owns each condition and who escalates when the owner cannot act.
Measurement should focus on completed access, not activity volume alone. A testing measure needs a defined eligible denominator and next-step logic. A linkage measure needs receiving confirmation. A prevention measure should separate discussion, choice, initiation, and continuation. A viral suppression measure needs a defined population, laboratory window, missing-data rule, and privacy protection. Every stratified review should be used to identify unequal conditions and improve the system, never to label a population as the problem.
Figure 5. Proposed executive scorecard for HIV access continuity
| Measure | Definition and denominator | Owner and cadence | Data source | Interpretation limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Testing-to-next-step completion | People with a completed HIV test and documented appropriate next step divided by people with a completed test in the review period | Testing and navigation leads, monthly | Testing, referral, and navigation records | Documentation may miss support obtained outside the network |
| Warm-linkage completion | People newly linked with receiving-team confirmation within the locally defined interval divided by people eligible for linkage | Linkage owner, weekly or monthly | Referral and receiving records | The interval must reflect current guidance and local access, not an invented benchmark |
| Prevention choice completion | Eligible people documenting an informed choice and a usable next step divided by people completing a prevention discussion | Prevention program owner, monthly | Clinical, navigation, pharmacy, and benefits records | Declining PrEP is not a failure when choice was informed and respected |
| Medication access interruption | People with an identified procurement, coverage, refill, or administration interruption divided by people using the relevant service | Pharmacy and finance leads, monthly | Pharmacy, claims, scheduling, and escalation records | Records may not capture interruptions resolved outside the system |
| Viral suppression | People meeting the organization's current, explicitly defined laboratory criterion divided by eligible people with documented status under the stated missing-data rule | Clinical quality lead, quarterly | Laboratory and clinical records | Definition, eligibility, missingness, and measurement window must be displayed |
| Community decision influence | Governance decisions changed, initiated, or paused after documented community input divided by decisions submitted for community review | Compact chair and community co-chair, quarterly | Decision and feedback ledger | A percentage cannot establish the quality or legitimacy of participation |
| Stigma-response closure | Reported stigma or discrimination concerns with action and feedback completed by the agreed date divided by concerns accepted for review | Patient experience and workforce leaders, monthly | Protected reporting and action ledger | Low reporting may reflect fear or weak access to reporting, not low harm |
A scorecard is only useful when it changes a decision. Pair each measure with a short narrative describing the population, time period, missing data, observed barrier, responsible owner, action, and due date. Review direction and distribution, not a single total. Ask whose experience is absent. Verify that community partners can challenge the interpretation. Publish only results that the organization can explain without overstating certainty.
Stigma and privacy require special care in data review. Use the least identifiable data necessary. Apply small-number protections. Limit access by role. Do not combine variables in a way that exposes a person or small community. Explain why data are collected and how they are used. A technically complete dashboard can damage trust if governance is weak.
Action
A focused 90-day executive agenda
Southern HIV/AIDS Awareness Day can launch a disciplined improvement cycle without pretending that a complex access system can be transformed in one quarter. Select one priority transition with a documented need, such as testing to prevention, diagnosis to first receiving appointment, pharmacy access, transportation-supported continuity, or reengagement after an interruption. Define the population and scope before designing a solution.
Figure 6. Ninety-day implementation timeline
Days 1–30: see the route
Name an executive sponsor, operational owner, and community co-chair. Fund community participation and document decision rights. Select one transition and map every step from the person's point of view. Record waiting, repeated information requests, denials, coverage steps, travel, privacy risks, supply dependencies, digital requirements, and failed referrals. Define a denominator and baseline before building a dashboard.
Days 31–60: test the controls
Co-design entry criteria, warm-handoff evidence, hold conditions, fallback options, and escalation. Assess workforce knowledge and consultation access. Resolve one critical access barrier, such as a procurement delay, transport gap, confusing intake, or coverage handoff. Practice one difficult scenario. Run the first scorecard review with community partners and correct definitions that hide missingness or exclude an experience.
Days 61–90: prove learning
Test the redesigned transition on a limited scale with appropriate consent, privacy, and clinical oversight. Close priority workforce, stigma-response, and confidentiality actions. Verify that feedback changed a documented decision. Confirm who owns the route and resources after the initial cycle. Review results and limitations with executive leadership, community representatives, and the appropriate board committee.
Public communication should match the operational work. Explain that Southern HIV/AIDS Awareness Day occurs on August 20 and recognizes the need for HIV awareness, testing, prevention, care, treatment, stigma reduction, and adequate resources in the South. Connect the message to a specific commitment that can be verified, such as a warm-linkage process, funded community governance, expanded provider support, a privacy-protected transportation option, or closure of a known pharmacy handoff.
Avoid imagery or language that sensationalizes HIV, implies a diagnosis from appearance, treats a community as a risk category, or frames people as passive recipients. Use photographs and stories only with informed permission and a clear purpose. Distinguish a person's experience from a population claim. Do not publish a metric without its denominator, period, definition, and limitation.
Related observances can reinforce the operating standard. National Health Center Week 2026 can extend attention to trusted community access, while National Immunization Awareness Month 2026 examines reliable preventive-service delivery. The subject differs, but the leadership question is consistent: can people reach, choose, and complete the service the organization promotes?
Leadership close
Southern HIV/AIDS Awareness Day should leave the organization with more than a message. It should leave a clearer pathway, stronger community authority, safer and more affirming care, better-supported prevention choice, verified handoffs, and a short list of accountable actions. Awareness becomes credible when executives build the conditions that allow every person to seek information, prevention, testing, treatment, and long-term support with dignity, privacy, and a reliable next step.
Peer-reviewed evidence
References
References are ordered newest first. Every source was individually verified as peer reviewed. DOI links are provided for durable public identification.
- Asante, G., Giambalvo, N., Spieldenner, A., Garner, A., Bautista, A., & Shahbazpour, A. (2026). “HIV lives with me; I don't live with HIV”: Resilient narratives of aging HIV-positive same-gender loving Black men in U.S. South. Health Communication, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2026.2707304
- McCormick, K. A., Stanton, M. C., Strohl, K., & Ali, S. B. (2026). Evaluating equity-centered capacity-building programs to strengthen implementation leadership in Southern U.S. HIV service organizations. Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, 25, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259582261470700
- Sophus, A. I., Braun, K. L., Mitchell, J. W., Barroso, J., Sales, J. M., & LeBlanc, N. M. (2026). Understanding PrEP contemplation among Black women: Insights from a qualitative analysis. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 13(3), 2487–2502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-025-02434-5
- Smith, D. G., Castro, C., Pichilingue-Reto, P., Dean, C. G., Malek, A., & Espinoza, L. E. (2026). Knowledge gaps and structural barriers to prescribing pre-exposure prophylaxis among healthcare providers in North Louisiana: A cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE, 21(5), e0346890. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346890
- Liu, Y., Mitchell, J. W., Brown, L., Chandler, C. J., Odom, U., Jenkins, D., Osman, A., & Zhang, C. (2026). A qualitative study of multilevel resilience mechanisms to counter intersectional stigma among Black men who have sex with men in a Southern United States city. Discover Public Health, 23(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-026-01773-w
- Joseph, K. M., Elopre, L., Matthews, L. T., Van Der Pol, B., Tucker, J. D., & Gravett, R. M. (2026). Crowdsourcing is acceptable to develop pre-exposure prophylaxis promotions in Alabama: A qualitative study with sexual minority men and sexual health providers. Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, 25, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259582251410273
- Fang, R., Steggerda, J. C., Konkle-Parker, D., & Voluse, A. C. (2026). Age and race disparities in viral suppression and the moderating effect of substance use among men who have sex with men living with HIV. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 53(1), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-025-09948-0
- Baker, D., Collins, L. F., Cantos, V. D., Hollenberg, E., Kaplan, A., Cowan, T., Garcia, J., & Lora, M. (2026). Early implementation of long-acting injectable cabotegravir for HIV prevention in a safety net hospital-based primary care center in U.S. South. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 41(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-025-09350-8
- Higashi, R. T., Hogan, T. P., Repasky, E. C., Lee, J., Torres, M. B., Marcus, J. L., Harris, B. L., Nijhawan, A. E., & Krakower, D. (2026). Contributions of qualitative methods to real-time implementation strategy design: A case study linking justice involved individuals at risk for HIV to pre-exposure prophylaxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 25. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069261426142
- McCollum, D. C., Miller, S. J., Tam, C. C., Ahuja, D., Weissman, S., & Harrison, S. E. (2025). A mixed methods study of perceptions of a rideshare intervention to address transportation vulnerability among people living with HIV in South Carolina. Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, 24, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259582251388691
- O'Neil, A. M., Quinn, K. G., Algiers, O. H., John, S. A., Hirshfield, S., Kallies, K. J., Petroll, A. E., & Walsh, J. L. (2025). Telehealth challenges, opportunities, and policy recommendations for rural older adults living with HIV in the United States. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 37(6), 1339–1357. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2024.2422658
- Beyrer, C., Remien, R. H., Eshleman, S. H., Gamble, T. R., De Dieu Tapsoba, J., Labbett, R. L., Sullivan, P. A., Laeyendecker, O., Anderson, P. L., Agravat, D., Hughes, J. P., Driffin, D. D., Hutchinson, C. S., Hucks-Ortiz, C., Adair, M., Curry, M., Jones, S. B., Haddock, I. L., Boyd, D., Burwen, D. R., Johnson, A. S., & Nelson, L. E. (2025). Investigating the HIV epidemic among Black gay and bisexual men in the Southern United States: Results of the HPTN 096 pilot cross-sectional assessment. PLOS ONE, 20(10), e0334031. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334031
- Sohail, M., Westfall, A. O., Chiedo, A., Johnson, B., Amico, K. R., Sullivan, P. S., Marrazzo, J., Turan, J. M., Mugavero, M. J., & Elopre, L. (2025). Contextual barriers to PrEP uptake and continuation among young Black gay and bisexual men who have sex with men living in the South. PLOS ONE, 20(10), e0334285. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334285
- Tran, N. M., Gonzales, G., Fry, C. E., Dusetzina, S. B., & McKay, T. (2025). Patterns of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer patient experiences and receipt of preventive services. Health Services Research, 60(5), e14632. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14632
- Johnson, E. T., Wilbert, C. L., Simon, T., Hawkins, A. M., & Yaghmaian, R. (2025). “Give us a chance”: Recommendations from Black women living with HIV multimorbidity. AIDS Care, 37(10), 1753–1767. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2025.2536180
- Schaack, A. K., Allamong, M. B., Hung, F., Barfield, R. T., Wilson, S. M., Watkins, T., Link, K., & McKellar, M. S. (2025). Opinions and concerns surrounding long-acting injectable and oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis among current and former users. AIDS and Behavior, 29(10), 3026–3035. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-025-04749-0