Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31821044›Full record

SynthesisAIDS patient care and STDs2019

HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Implementation Cascade Among Health Care Professionals in the United States: Implications from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Chen Zhang, James McMahon, Kevin Fiscella, Sarahmona Przybyla, Amy Braksmajer, Natalie LeBlanc, Yu Liu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in AIDS patient care and STDs, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed
–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

59 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  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

7 authors.

Chen ZhangSchool of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.
James McMahonSchool of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.
Kevin FiscellaDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.
Sarahmona PrzybylaDepartment of Community Health and Health Behavior, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York.
Amy BraksmajerSchool of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.
Natalie LeBlancSchool of Nursing, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.
Yu LiuDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health Science, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.

Funding

Virology/Immunology CoreP30AI078498 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI DEWHURST, STEPHEN · 2008 to 2018
$14.6M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI078498
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been approved for primary HIV prevention for individuals aged 18 years or older since 2012, PrEP utilization has been suboptimal. To understand trends in PrEP provision from the health care providers' perspective, we systematically assessed each specific stage along the PrEP implementation cascade (i.e., awareness, willingness, consultation, and prescription) among health care professionals (HCPs) in the United States. Between June and December 2018, we conducted a systematic review of published studies on this topic. A total of 36 eligible studies were identified and included in the analyses. Random-effect models were employed to examine the pooled prevalence of each key stage along the cascade. Time trend and subgroup analyses were conducted. A thematic analysis was used to identify barriers and facilitators along the PrEP cascade. In this study, a total of 18,265 HCPs representing diverse demographics were included. The pooled prevalence of PrEP awareness was 68% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 55-80%], willingness to prescribe PrEP was 66% (95% CI = 54-77%), PrEP consultation was 37% (95% CI = 25-51%), and prescription provision was 24% (95% CI = 17-32%). Subgroup analyses revealed that PrEP provision among HCPs was lowest in the south, but has been improving annually nationwide. Infectious disease specialists [odds ratio (OR) = 4.06, 95% CI = 3.12-5.28; compared with primary care providers] and advanced practice registered nurses/physician assistants (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.09-2.09; compared with physicians) had higher odds of prescribing PrEP. Barriers and facilitators regarding optimal PrEP implementation were embedded within individual, dyadic, social, and structural levels. This meta-analysis has comprehensively examined the trend and pattern of PrEP implementation among HCPs. To achieve optimal implementation of the PrEP cascade in the United States, tailored training and programs need to be provided to HCPs.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAnti-HIV AgentsFemaleHealth PersonnelHIV InfectionsHumansMalePhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Pre-Exposure ProphylaxisSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesAnti-HIV Agentshealth care professionalsmeta-analysisPrEP implementation cascadesystematic reviewUnited States

Identifiers

PMID31821044
PMCPMC6918849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.