Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29420549›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Contexts of vulnerability and the acceptability of new biomedical HIV prevention technologies among key populations in South Africa: A qualitative study.

Millicent Atujuna, Peter A Newman, Melissa Wallace, Megan Eluhu, Clara Rubincam, Ben Brown, Linda-Gail Bekker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  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. Leveraging the therapeutic, biological, and self-assembling potential of peptides for the treatment of viral infections.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2022
    Review
  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.

Millicent AtujunaDesmond Tutu HIV Foundation, Health Sciences Faculty, Institute of Infectious Disease, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Peter A NewmanFactor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0444-5915
Melissa WallaceDesmond Tutu HIV Foundation, Health Sciences Faculty, Institute of Infectious Disease, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Megan EluhuDesmond Tutu HIV Foundation, Health Sciences Faculty, Institute of Infectious Disease, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Clara RubincamFactor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ben BrownDesmond Tutu HIV Foundation, Health Sciences Faculty, Institute of Infectious Disease, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Linda-Gail BekkerDesmond Tutu HIV Foundation, Health Sciences Faculty, Institute of Infectious Disease, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew biomedical prevention technologies (NPTs) may contribute to substantially reducing incident HIV infections globally. We explored acceptability and preferences for NPTs among key and other vulnerable populations in two South African townships.

methodsWe conducted six focus groups and 12 in-depth interviews with adolescents, and adult heterosexual men, women, and men who have sex with men (MSM) (n = 48), and eight in-depth interviews with key informant healthcare workers. The interview guide described pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), vaginal rings, rectal microbicides and HIV vaccines, and explored acceptability and product preferences. Focus groups and in-depth interviews (45-80 minutes) were conducted in Xhosa, audiotaped, and transcribed and translated into English. Data were coded and reviewed using framework analysis with NVivo software.

resultsOverall, initial enthusiasm and willingness to use NPTs evolved into concerns about how particular NPTs might affect or require alterations in one's everyday lifestyle and practices. Different product preferences and motivations emerged by population based on similarity to existing practices and contexts of vulnerability. Adult women and female adolescents preferred a vaginal ring and HIV vaccine, motivated by longer duration of protection to mitigate feared repercussions from male partners, including threats to their marriage and safety, and a context of ubiquitous rape. Male adolescents preferred an HIV vaccine, seen as protection in serodiscordant relationships and convenient in obviating the HIV stigma and cost involved in buying condoms. Adult men preferred PrEP, given familiarity with oral medications and mistrust of injections, seen as enabling serodiscordant couples to have a child. MSM preferred a rectal microbicide given familiarity with gel-based lubricants, with concerns about duration of protection in the context of unplanned consensual sex and rape.

conclusionsBiomedical interventions to prevent HIV transmission, rather than obviating social-structural factors that produce vulnerability, may be limited by these same factors. Implementation of NPTs should engage local communities to understand real-world constraints and strategise to deliver effective, multi-level combination prevention.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentFemaleFocus GroupsHIV InfectionsHomosexuality, MaleHumansInterviews as TopicMalePre-Exposure ProphylaxisQualitative ResearchSexual BehaviorSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID29420549
PMCPMC5805172

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.