Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27354071›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Preferences for ARV-based HIV prevention methods among men and women, adolescent girls and female sex workers in Gauteng Province, South Africa: a protocol for a discrete choice experiment.

Matthew Quaife, Robyn Eakle, Maria Cabrera, Peter Vickerman, Motlalepule Tsepe, Fiona Cianci, Sinead Delany-Moretlwe, Fern Terris-Prestholt

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  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. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthew QuaifeDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK Wits RHI, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-9291-1511
Robyn EakleDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK Wits RHI, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Maria CabreraWits RHI, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Peter VickermanDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Motlalepule TsepeProgressus Research and Development, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Fiona CianciDepartment of Public Health East, Dr Steeven's Hospital, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Sinead Delany-MoretlweWits RHI, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Fern Terris-PrestholtDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
University of the Witwatersrand · ZALondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFor the past few decades, condoms have been the main method of HIV prevention. Recent advances in antiretroviral (ARV)-based prevention products have substantially changed the prevention landscape, yet little is known about how popular these products will be among potential users, or whether new methods might be used in conjunction with, or instead of, condoms. This study will use a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to (1) explore potential users' preferences regarding HIV prevention products, (2) quantify the importance of product attributes and (3) predict the uptake of products to inform estimates of their potential impact on the HIV epidemic in South Africa. We consider preferences for oral pre-exposure prophylaxis; a vaginal microbicide gel; a long-acting vaginal ring; a SILCS diaphragm used in concert with gel; and a long-acting ARV-based injectable. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will gather data from 4 populations: 200 women, 200 men, 200 adolescent girls (aged 16-17 years) and 200 female sex workers. The DCE attributes and design will be developed through a literature review, supplemented by a thematic analysis of qualitative focus group discussions. Extensive piloting will be carried out in each population through semistructured interviews. The final survey will be conducted using computer tablets via a household sample (for women, men and adolescents) and respondent-driven sampling (for female sex workers), and DCE data analysed using a range of multinomial logit models. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the University of the Witwatersrand Human Research Ethics Committee and the Research Ethics Committee at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Findings will be presented to international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Meetings will be held with opinion leaders in South Africa, while results will be disseminated to participants in Ekurhuleni through a public meeting or newsletter.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorPatient PreferenceAdolescentAdultAnti-Retroviral AgentsCondomsFemaleFocus GroupsHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePre-Exposure ProphylaxisQualitative ResearchResearch DesignAnti-Retroviral AgentsHEALTH ECONOMICSPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID27354071
PMCPMC4932295
OpenAlexW2473265572

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.