Finds identity-based incentives increase PrEP adherence in transgender and nonbinary adults, suggesting a cost-effective strategy for HIV prevention.
Tailored supports are needed to maximize PrEP engagement among transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) adults, a population disproportionately impacted by HIV with low PrEP use, due to structural and economic barriers, particularly among TGNB individuals of color. This study piloted the integration of identity-based behavioral economic incentives, which use the science of decision-making to encourage beneficial behaviors, within an ongoing community-led, multi-component PrEP navigation program called PrEP Well . Prizes were selected through TGNB community input, were TGNB-affirming and specific to community needs, and included items sourced from TGNB-owned businesses; participants earned prize-wheel spins for PrEP-related steps. Among 108 TGNB adults at a trans-led Los Angeles community center (2022–2023; 36 enrolled before and 72 after incentives began), we conducted a non-randomized pilot trial assessing the acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary effects of incorporating these incentives into PrEP Well . Pilot results showed that, compared to standard PrEP Well , the addition of identity-based behavioral economic incentives was seen as feasible and acceptable, and produced a moderate effect on PrEP adherence at 90 days post-enrollment (78.6% vs. 56.3%, X 2 (1, 108) = 4.38, p < .05, φ = 0.20). Dose-response models indicated that each additional spin earned through the incentive program further increased the odds of PrEP adherence at 90 days by about 4.7-fold (95% confidence interval [2.34, 9.32], B = 1.54, p < .001). This improvement was achieved at a modest additional cost of approximately $51 per participant. Integrating behavioral economic incentives into community-based, identity-affirming service delivery models may be a promising, cost-effective approach for enhancing PrEP engagement and improving HIV prevention outcomes among TGNB adults.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Murtaugh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: