Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31941469›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Community perspectives on barriers and challenges to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis access by men who have sex with men and female sex workers access in Nigeria.

G Emmanuel, M Folayan, G Undelikwe, B Ochonye, T Jayeoba, A Yusuf, B Aiwonodagbon, C Bilali, P Umoh, K Ojemeiri and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  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. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

G EmmanuelHeartland Alliance International, Chicago, Nigeria.
M FolayanNew HIV Vaccine and Microbicide Advocacy Society, Lagos, Nigeria. toyinukpong@yahoo.co.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9008-7730
G UndelikweJoint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, Lagos, Nigeria.
B OchonyeHeartland Alliance International, Lagos, Nigeria.
T JayeobaHeartland Alliance International, Lagos, Nigeria.
A YusufHeartland Alliance International, Lagos, Nigeria.
B AiwonodagbonHeartland Alliance International, Lagos, Nigeria.
C BilaliHeartland Alliance International, Lagos, Nigeria.
P UmohJoint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, Lagos, Nigeria.
K OjemeiriHeartland Alliance International, Lagos, Nigeria.
A KalaiwoUnited States Agency for International Development, Abuja, Nigeria.
Heartland Alliance · USUnited States Agency for International Development · USYahoo (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

UNAIDS NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMen who have sex with men (MSM), female sex workers (FSW) have critical needs for effective HIV prevention tools. This study identified perspectives of MSM, FSW and policy makers on the needs for, barriers to, and challenges with pre-exposure HIV prophylaxis (PrEP); and the logistics required to support roll-out of PrEP for MSM and FSW in Nigeria.

methodsQualitative and quantitative data were collected through a cross-sectional study. The quantitative data were collected through an online survey administered to 519 MSM, FSW and transgender respondents. The qualitative data were collected through 22 focus group discussions with 140 MSM and 80 FSW, and a two-day consultative workshop with 65 participants. Two open-ended questions in the online survey were also a source of qualitative data. Results of the quantitative data were reported descriptively; the qualitative data were inductively examined with a content analytic approach to construct descriptive categories. The findings from the quantitative and qualitative responses were triangulated.

resultsFour hundred and ninety-four (95.2%) online respondents had heard about PrEP through community dialogue (71.3%), and 439 (84.6%) supported its use by MSM and FSW. Fewer than half of the respondents were aware of the clinical care required for PrEP, and misconceptions about PrEP were common. Stated barriers to PrEP uptake were stigma, cost, frequency of HIV counseling and treatment services required, and possible drug-drug interactions. Concerns included possible condom migration, increased risk for sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy for FSW, and poor adherence to medication and hospital schedules. Participants felt that trained peer educators and HIV-test counselors could provide information and refer clients to clinics that provide PrEP. PrEP can be provided through peer-led facilities for MSM and FSW, though its access should be expanded to all persons who are at substantial risk for HIV to prevent negative labeling of PrEP. Public awareness about the use of antiretrovirals for HIV prevention is needed to prevent labeling of PrEP users as being HIV positive.

conclusionAlthough MSM and FSW are interested in the use of PrEP, numerous individual and structural barriers need to be addressed to facilitate access to it in Nigeria.

Indexed as

Homosexuality, MaleSex WorkersAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMiddle AgedNigeriaPatient Acceptance of Health CarePre-Exposure ProphylaxisYoung AdultAntiretroviralsFemale sex workersHuman immunodeficiency virusMen who have sex with menNigeriaPre-exposure prophylaxisSexually transmitted disease

Identifiers

PMID31941469
PMCPMC6964078
OpenAlexW3004867706

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.