ArticleApplied cognitive psychology
Cognitive testing of an instrument to evaluate acceptability and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis products among women.
Article in Applied cognitive psychology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive testing of an instrument to evaluate acceptability and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis products among women.Applied cognitive psychologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Given the range of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) products currently being tested to prevent HIV in women, a standardized Acceptability and Use of PrEP Products Among Women Tool may facilitate comparisons of product acceptability and use across different geographies, trials, and users. We conducted three rounds of cognitive interviewing over 2 months in 2016, with 28 South African women who had experience participating in a range of PrEP product trials. The final instrument contained 41 items, including five new items that improved construct validity and 22 items modified for clarity. Changes were made due to unclear wording, difficulty answering, participant embarrassment, low response variability, and administrative formatting. Cognitive interviewing provided a means to address issues that would have inhibited this tool's ability to accurately collect data otherwise. This rapid, low-cost study provided valuable insight into participants' understanding of questions and demonstrated the utility of cognitive interviewing in international clinical trials.
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.