Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30312336›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in the Amsterdam Cohort Studies: Use, eligibility, and intention to use.

Liza Coyer, Ward van Bilsen, Janneke Bil, Udi Davidovich, Elske Hoornenborg, Maria Prins, Amy Matser

Open access · goldAbstract 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 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Determinants of PrEP Uptake, Intention and Awareness in the Netherlands: A Socio-Spatial Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Liza CoyerDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Research and Prevention, Public Health Service of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5830-2982
Ward van BilsenDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Research and Prevention, Public Health Service of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Janneke BilDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Research and Prevention, Public Health Service of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Udi DavidovichDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Research and Prevention, Public Health Service of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Elske HoornenborgDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Research and Prevention, Public Health Service of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Maria PrinsDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Amsterdam Infection & Immunity Institute (AIII), Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Amy MatserDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Research and Prevention, Public Health Service of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
GGD Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveCurrently, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is not covered by health insurance in the Netherlands. We examined time trends in use of PrEP, characteristics of PrEP users, PrEP eligibility and intention to use PrEP among HIV-negative men who have sex with men (MSM) participating in the Amsterdam Cohort Studies (ACS).

designProspective cohort study.

methodsWe used data from four 6-monthly questionnaire waves, collected between 2015-2017. PrEP use over time was examined in logistic regression models using generalized estimating equations. Using descriptive statistics, we compared PrEP users before first-time initiation to non-PrEP-users. We used national guidelines to assess PrEP eligibility.

resultsWe included 687 MSM. Median age was 40 (IQR 33-47) years in 2015. Recent PrEP use was reported by 57/687 (8%) MSM. PrEP use increased over calendar time (P<0.001) to 7% in 2017. PrEP users did not differ from non-PrEP users in socio-demographic characteristics, but reported a significantly higher median number of casual sex partners, more often reported condomless anal sex and chemsex with casual partners, and more often had an sexually transmitted infection in the preceding 6 months (all P<0.05). PrEP eligibility increased over time, but the effect was not statistically significant (P = 0.075). PrEP eligibility criteria were met by 149/460 (32%) at wave 4, of whom 31/149 (21%) reported use of PrEP. The proportion with a high intention to use PrEP was greater among eligible than non-eligible MSM (51% vs. 24%, P<0.001).

conclusionPrEP use increased over time but remained under 10%, even though 32% met the eligibility criteria, of whom 51% had a high intention to use PrEP. This suggests that a large proportion of Dutch MSM at risk could benefit from PrEP.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-HIV AgentsHIV InfectionsHomosexuality, MaleHumansIntentionMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPre-Exposure ProphylaxisProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesAnti-HIV Agents

Identifiers

PMID30312336
PMCPMC6185853
OpenAlexW2898065672

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.