Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27019765›Full record

ArticleJournal of AIDS & clinical research2015

Women want Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis but are Advised Against it by Their HIV-positive Counterparts.

Lakshmi Goparaju, Laure S Experton, Nathan C Praschan, Lari Warren-Jeanpiere, Mary A Young, Seble Kassaye

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of AIDS & clinical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Women's Decision-Making about PrEP for HIV Prevention in Drug Treatment Contexts.Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Lakshmi Goparaju
Laure S Experton
Nathan C Praschan
Lari Warren-Jeanpiere
Mary A Young
Seble Kassaye

Funding

WOMEN'S INTERAGENCY HIV STUDY (WIHS) ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENTU01AI034994 · NIAID · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI KASSAYE, SEBLE G · 1993 to 2018
$52.0M
Institutional Career Development CoreKL2TR001432 · NCATS · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI UMANS, JASON G · 2015 to 2024
$7.5M
Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science (GHUKL2TR000102 · NCATS · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MELLMAN, THOMAS A, VERBALIS, JOSEPH G · 2012 to 2014
$1.7M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000102NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001432NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI034994
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe latest advancement in HIV prevention, Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP), could reduce incidence among women. However, PrEP uptake has remained low among US women since its approval in 2012, while use has increased among men who have sex with men. This study addresses women's knowledge, attitudes and potential behaviors regarding PrEP. While HIV-negative women are the potential users of antiretroviral (ARV) medications for PrEP, HIV-positive women who have used ARVs could contribute immensely to our understanding of the complexities related to taking such medications. This study is the first to synthesize the opinions of both groups of women.

methodsWe conducted eight focus group discussions, segregated by sero-status; four with at-risk HIV-negative (20) and four with HIV-positive (19) women in Washington DC during 2014. Topics discussed include PrEP awareness, likelihood of use, barriers and target populations.

resultsPrEP awareness was almost non-existent and the HIV-negative women urged publicity. They expressed much enthusiasm about PrEP and wanted to use and recommend it to others despite recognizing potential complexities related to taking PrEP, such as side effects, access, duration and frequency of use. HIV-positive women were less supportive of PrEP for those same reasons based on their experience with taking ARVs. They preferred condoms over PrEP given relative efficacy, affordability, accessibility, and prevention of other STIs.

conclusionsThere is an urgent need for PrEP public health campaigns catered to the needs and concerns of women, most importantly bolster their awareness of PrEP.

Indexed as

HIVPre-exposure prophylaxisPreventionUnited StatesWomen

Identifiers

PMID27019765
PMCPMC4807623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.