Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data and HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Disparity Detection - Summary - MDSpire
Coming Soon: Introducing MDSpire News. Learn more
Conexiant’s news site is now MDSpire News. Learn more

Using Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data to Identify Disparities in HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis

  • By

  • Dhruv Khurana

  • Maryah Garner

  • Sonam Khurana

  • Bijan Sasaninia

  • Anthony Firek

  • October 14, 2026

Share

Objective:

To assess how restricting or omitting sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) information affects surveillance detection of disparities in documented HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) orders.

Approach:
  • Design and data: Cross-sectional analysis linking structured SOGI and demographic fields with PrEP medication orders in a Southern California safety-net health system.
  • Population and outcome: The final sample included 165,198 adults with classifiable sex assigned at birth (SAAB), sexual orientation, and gender identity. The outcome was any documented PrEP order through October 27, 2025.
  • Surveillance scenarios: The same population and outcome were assessed with complete SOGI data, SAAB-only data, and simulated joint SOGI missingness ranging from 0% to 90%. Analyses also assessed whether missingness was associated with measured patient characteristics or underlying SOGI values.
Key Findings:
  • The analysis compared which disparities were observable with complete SOGI data, SAAB-only monitoring, and simulated joint SOGI missingness; the supplied context does not provide scenario-specific results.
  • Structured SOGI collection began in 2021, and completeness for both SOGI fields exceeded 95% by 2023.
  • Observation duration could vary across patients because registration and first-encounter dates were unavailable.
Interpretation:

The analysis compared the disparities observable under complete SOGI data, SAAB-only monitoring, and simulated SOGI missingness. The supplied context states that the approach showed which disparities remained observable, but does not provide the scenario-specific findings.

Limitations:
  • A uniform follow-up period could not be established because registration and first-encounter dates were unavailable.
  • Race and ethnicity fields did not identify who supplied or recorded the information.
Sources:

Original Source(s)

Related Content