ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies2016
Healthcare providers' knowledge, attitudes and practices towards medical male circumcision and their understandings of its partial efficacy in HIV prevention: Qualitative research in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Article in International journal of nursing studies, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Healthcare providers' perceptions and understanding of voluntary medical male circumcision in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: A qualitative study.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2021Article
- Healthcare workers' perceptions and experiences of implementing voluntary medical male circumcision in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- 'Why would you promote something that is less percent safer than a condom?': Perspectives on partially effective HIV prevention technologies among key populations in South Africa.SAHARA J : journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS Research Alliance · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedical male circumcision has been shown to reduce HIV transmission to an uninfected male partner. In South Africa, medical male circumcision programs were rolled-out in 2010.
objectivesPrior to roll-out, we explored healthcare providers' knowledge, attitudes and practices about medical male circumcision and their understandings of partial efficacy for HIV prevention.
designWe conducted qualitative research, using in-depth interviews.
settingParticipants were from three rural and three urban primary healthcare clinics, randomly selected in eThekwini District, KwaZulu-Natal.
participants25 healthcare providers (including nurse managers, nurses and counselors) were purposively selected from the clinics.
methodsIn-depth interviews were recorded, transcribed and translated. Independent researchers reviewed the transcripts and developed a codebook based on emergent themes, using thematic analysis. NVivo 8 was used to facilitate data management, coding and analysis.
resultsAlthough most providers had heard that medical male circumcision can reduce risk of HIV acquisition in men, most did not have accurate scientific understandings of this. Some providers had misperceptions about the limited/partial protection medical male circumcision offers. Many had concerns that their communities would misunderstand it, causing increased risky sexual behavior.
conclusionsThese data provide a baseline of providers' understandings of medical male circumcision prior to roll-out, and can be used to compare current data and ensure accurate messaging to clients. Healthcare provider messaging should build client understandings of the meaning of partially efficacious technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.