Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25963772›Full record

ArticleAIDS and behavior2016

Explaining the Efficacy of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV Prevention: A Qualitative Study of Message Framing and Messaging Preferences Among US Men Who have Sex with Men.

Kristen Underhill, Kathleen M Morrow, Christopher Colleran, Sarah K Calabrese, Don Operario, Peter Salovey, Kenneth H Mayer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AIDS and behavior, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

7 authors.

Kristen UnderhillYale Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS, Yale University, 135 College St, Suite 200, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. kristen.underhill@yale.edu.
Kathleen M MorrowCenters for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI, USA.
Christopher ColleranCenters for Behavioral and Preventive Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI, USA.
Sarah K CalabreseYale Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS, Yale University, 135 College St, Suite 200, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.
Don OperarioProgram in Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Peter SaloveyDepartment of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Kenneth H MayerThe Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Minority Populations Prevention Researcher TrainingR25HD045810 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI NEILANDS, TORSTEN BRIAN · 2003 to 2018
$4.3M
PrEP for HIV Prevention in MSM: Mixed-Methods Study of Behavior & Message FramingK01MH093273 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI UNDERHILL, KRISTEN · 2011 to 2015
$873k
Advancing Reproductive Health: Qualitative Methods & Interdisciplinary MentorshipK24HD062645 · NICHD · MIRIAM HOSPITAL · PI GUTHRIE, KATE M · 2012 to 2016
$689k
Intervention to Promote PrEP Awareness and Equitable Prescription among ProvidersK01MH103080 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI CALABRESE, SARAH K. · 2014 to 2017
$634k
NICHD NIH HHS K24 HD062645NICHD NIH HHS R25 HD045810NIMHD NIH HHS L60 MD008519NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH093273NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH103080
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated message comprehension and message framing preferences for communicating about PrEP efficacy with US MSM. We conducted eight focus groups (n = 38) and n = 56 individual interviews with MSM in Providence, RI. Facilitators probed comprehension, credibility, and acceptability of efficacy messages, including percentages, non-numerical paraphrases, efficacy ranges versus point estimates, and success- versus failure-framed messages. Our findings indicated a range of comprehension and operational understandings of efficacy messages. Participants tended to prefer percentage-based and success-framed messages, although preferences varied for communicating about efficacy using a single percentage versus a range. Participants reported uncertainty about how to interpret numerical estimates, and many questioned whether trial results would predict personal effectiveness. These results suggest that providers and researchers implementing PrEP may face challenges in communicating with users about efficacy. Efforts to educate MSM about PrEP should incorporate percentage-based information, and message framing decisions may influence message credibility and overall PrEP acceptability.

Indexed as

Homosexuality, MalePre-Exposure ProphylaxisAdultAnti-HIV AgentsComprehensionFocus GroupsHealth LiteracyHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareQualitative ResearchYoung AdultAnti-HIV AgentsHealth communicationHIV preventionMen who have sex with menMessage framingPre-exposure prophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID25963772
PMCPMC4643421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.