Back

Re-shaping professional boundaries to scale-up HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) services: collaborative care and power dynamics in Belgium

Vanhamel, J.; Kielmann, K.; Reyniers, T.; Scheerder, G.; Nostlinger, C.

2026-07-16 public and global health
10.64898/2026.07.14.26357825 medRxiv
Show abstract

Scaling HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) services in health systems will require collaboration and clear role distinction among professionals, and between specialist and primary care. This study examined how power dynamics shape efforts to expand PrEP care beyond specialised HIV clinics in Belgium. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 36 HIV clinic providers and two community-based organisation (CBO) representatives, and 16 online group discussions with general practitioners (GPs). We analysed data thematically, guided by the concepts of collaborative and competitive power to examine how providers negotiated expertise and role division in PrEP delivery across professional and organisational boundaries. We found that reimbursement regulations anchored PrEP initiation and follow-up within HIV clinics, embedding specialist jurisdiction in care pathways. HIV specialists reinforced this position by drawing on their recognised expertise in HIV medicine to justify clinical coordination and authority in determining standards of care. GPs emphasised accessibility and preventive care roles but made limited claims to PrEP provision, linked to misaligned organisational incentives, role blurring, limited training opportunities, and the historical concentration of HIV care in specialist services. CBOs facilitated access, enabling coordination between vulnerable communities and clinics while remaining weakly embedded in formal care structures. Findings show that expanding integrated PrEP services beyond specialised care is not only shaped by operational issues such as training and resources but also by the structural dynamics of regulations, institutional mandates, and professional jurisdictions that influence collaboration. Effective scale-up will require policies that align incentives, clarify responsibilities, and support collaboration across specialised, primary care, and community settings.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 9%
19.0%
2
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 1%
15.5%
3
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.0%
4
Epidemics
116 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMJ Global Health
113 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.4%
6
BMJ Public Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
7
BMC Public Health
158 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
8
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.2%
9
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.2%
10
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.2%
11
Health Expectations
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
12
BMC Infectious Diseases
133 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
13
BMC Medicine
176 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
14
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
73 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.2%
15
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
16
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.1%
17
Global Health Action
10 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
18
Archives of Public Health
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
19
Microbiology Spectrum
469 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.9%
20
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
21
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 63%
0.9%
22
Vaccine
203 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
British Journal of General Practice
23 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
24
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.6%