Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24386160›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

How much demand for New HIV prevention technologies can we really expect? Results from a discrete choice experiment in South Africa.

Fern Terris-Prestholt, Kara Hanson, Catherine MacPhail, Peter Vickerman, Helen Rees, Charlotte Watts

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06803316 (Optimizing Care Delivery to Support Reengagement in PLWH Returning to HIV Care After Treatment Lapses in Zambia), which is not on this map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06803316 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Optimizing Care Delivery to Support Reengagement in PLWH Returning to HIV Care After Treatment Lapses in Zambia

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorCentre for Infectious Disease Research in ZambiaRan2022 to 2025Enrolled658ConditionsHIV Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Adherence
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. How well do discrete choice experiments predict health choices? A systematic review and meta-analysis of external validity.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. A Break from the Norm? Parametric Representations of Preference Heterogeneity for Discrete Choice Models in Health.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Fern Terris-PrestholtDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Kara HansonDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Catherine MacPhailWits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, Hillbrow, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa ; Collaborative Research Network for Mental Health and Wellbeing in Rural and Regional Communities (CRN), University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia.
Peter VickermanDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Helen ReesWits Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, Hillbrow, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa.
Charlotte WattsDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

Medical Research Council
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor the first time in the history of HIV, new bio-medical interventions have been shown to be effective in preventing HIV transmission. For these new HIV prevention technologies (NPTs) to have an impact on the epidemic, they must be widely used. This study uses a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to: understand the relative strength of women's preferences for product characteristics, understand the implications for substitution away from male condoms, and inform realistic modelling of their potential impact and cost-effectiveness.

methodsA DCE was conducted among 1017 women in urban South Africa. Women were presented with choices between potential women's NPTs (microbicides, diaphragm, female condom) and 'what I did last time' (use or not use a condom) with different HIV and pregnancy prevention effectiveness' and prices. Choice probabilities are estimated using the nested logit model and used to predict uptake.

resultsIn this high HIV prevalence setting, HIV prevention effectiveness is the main driver of uptake followed by pregnancy prevention effectiveness. For example a microbicide with poor effectiveness would have niche appeal at just 11% predicted uptake, while a highly effective microbicide (95% effective against HIV and pregnancy) would have far wider appeal (56% predicted uptake). Though women who reported not using condoms were more likely to choose the NPTs, at current very high rates of male condom use in South Africa (60%), about half of microbicide uptake is projected to be among those currently not using condoms.

conclusionsWomen are very interested in NPTs, especially if highly effective in preventing HIV and pregnancy. Women in greatest need were also most likely to switch to the new products. Where products are not yet available for distribution, proxy data, such as that generated by DCEs, can bring realism to overly optimistic uptake scenarios found in many current impact models.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorContraceptive DevicesFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID24386160
PMCPMC3875434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.