Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31696371›Full record

Trial reportAIDS and behavior2020

Efficacy is Not Everything: Eliciting Women's Preferences for a Vaginal HIV Prevention Product Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment.

Erica N Browne, Elizabeth T Montgomery, Carol Mansfield, Marco Boeri, Brennan Mange, Mags Beksinska, Jill L Schwartz, Meredith R Clark, Gustavo F Doncel, Jenni Smit and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in AIDS and behavior, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Assessing Non-Oral PrEP Alternatives Among Young Black Women in the Southern USA.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Erica N BrowneWomen's Global Health Imperative, RTI International, 351 California Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA, 94104, USA. ebrowne@rti.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2069-6589
Elizabeth T MontgomeryWomen's Global Health Imperative, RTI International, 351 California Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA, 94104, USA.
Carol MansfieldHealth Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Marco BoeriHealth Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Brennan MangeHealth Solutions, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Mags BeksinskaMatCH Research Unit (MRU), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Durban, South Africa.
Jill L SchwartzCONRAD, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Arlington, VA, USA.
Meredith R ClarkCONRAD, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Arlington, VA, USA.
Gustavo F DoncelCONRAD, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Arlington, VA, USA.
Jenni SmitMatCH Research Unit (MRU), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Durban, South Africa.
Zvavahera M ChirenjeUniversity of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences Clinical Trials Research Centre, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Ariane van der StratenWomen's Global Health Imperative, RTI International, 351 California Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA, 94104, USA.
RTI International · USEastern Virginia Medical School · USUniversity of the Witwatersrand · ZAUniversity of Zimbabwe · ZW

Funding

Ujima Mentoring ProgramP30MH062246 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI MALLORY O JOHNSON · 2001 to 2026
$57.4M
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation GSB-S-15-001EPA EP-C-15-001NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH062246United States Agency for International Development MAPS2-15-053
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As new female-initiated HIV prevention products enter development, it is crucial to incorporate women's preferences to ensure products will be desired, accepted, and used. A discrete-choice experiment was designed to assess the relative importance of six attributes to stated choice of a vaginally delivered HIV prevention product. Sexually active women in South Africa and Zimbabwe aged 18-30 were recruited from two samples: product-experienced women from a randomized trial of four vaginal placebo forms and product-naïve community members. In a tablet-administered survey, 395 women chose between two hypothetical products over eight choice sets. Efficacy was the most important, but there were identifiable preferences among other attributes. Women preferred a product that also prevented pregnancy and caused some wetness (p < 0.001). They disliked a daily-use product (p = 0.002) and insertion by finger (p = 0.002). Although efficacy drove preference, wetness, pregnancy prevention, and dosing regimen were influential to stated choice of a product, and women were willing to trade some level of efficacy to have other more desired attributes.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsAdolescentAdultChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansPatient PreferencePregnancySouth AfricaSurveys and QuestionnairesVaginaYoung AdultZimbabweDiscrete-choice experimentHIV preventionSouth AfricaWomenZimbabwe

Identifiers

PMID31696371
PMCPMC6990865
OpenAlexW2983622305

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.