ArticlePloS one2018
A mixed methods study of non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis at an STI clinic in Singapore: Five-year retrospective analysis and providers' perspectives.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Awareness and Use of Post-exposure Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Drug users' awareness of and willingness to use HIV non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) services in China: a mixed methods study.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Implementation of HIV non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis for men who have sex with men in 2 cities of Southwestern China.Medicine · 2021Article
- HIV Non-Occupational Post Exposure Prophylaxis in Nigeria: A Systematic Review of Research Evidence and Practice.International journal of MCH and AIDS · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis mixed methods study aims to describe 1) characteristics of the population treated with non-occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP), 2) predictors of loss to follow-up (LTFU) and nPEP adherence, and 3) to evaluate the nPEP prescribing practices against current management guideline.
methodsThis study was conducted at the Department of Sexually Transmitted Infections Control Clinic in Singapore using clinical data from 2010 to 2016. Explanatory sequential mixed method design was adopted. Predictors of LTFU and nPEP adherence were assessed using modified Poisson regression with robust sandwich variance. Subsequently, nine in-depth interviews with healthcare providers were conducted to gain their insights into barriers and facilitators to nPEP implementation. Transcripts were coded and themes were explored using applied thematic analysis.
resultsOf 502 nPEP cases reviewed, 46% were LTFU, 42% were adherent to nPEP and 431 prescription decisions were made in accordance with the guideline. Tourists (aRR, 2.29 [1.90-2.74]; p<0.001) and men who have sex with men/bisexual men (aRR, 1.32 [1.09-1.59]; p = 0.004) were significant predictors of LTFU. Absence of side effects (aRR, 1.14 [1.02-1.27]; p = 0.024) and nPEP treatment with TDF/FTC/ATV/r (aRR, 1.15 [1.03-1.29]; p = 0.017) were positively associated with nPEP adherence. Stigma, types of antiretroviral regimen, side effects, and patients' perception of risk and treatment benefits derived qualitatively further reinforced corresponding quantitative findings.
conclusionTailored socio-behavioral interventions are needed to address inherent differences within heterogeneous populations requesting nPEP, stigma, and patients' perceptions of nPEP in order to improve follow-up and its adherence.
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.