Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32064765›Full record

ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2020

HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis for female sex workers: ensuring women's family planning needs are not left behind.

Anna L Bowring, Frances H Ampt, Sheree Schwartz, Mark A Stoové, Stanley Luchters, Stefan Baral, Margaret Hellard

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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 at 2 institutions in 4 countries.

Anna L BowringDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2192-9260
Frances H AmptBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sheree SchwartzDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Mark A StoovéBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Stanley LuchtersBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Stefan BaralDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5482-2419
Margaret HellardBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Burnet Institute · AUJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Examining PrEP use, implementation preferences and the potential for social support to improve PrEP delivery and persistence among female sex workers in Durban, South AfricaR01NR016650 · NINR · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI BARAL, STEFAN DAVID · 2016 to 2020
$3.2M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR016650
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFemale sex workers (FSWs) experience overlapping burdens of HIV, sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly efficacious for HIV prevention. It represents a promising strategy to reduce HIV acquisition risks among FSWs specifically given complex social and structural factors that challenge consistent condom use. However, the potential impact on unintended pregnancy has garnered little attention. We discuss the potential concerns and opportunities for PrEP to positively or negatively impact the sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) of FSWs. DISCUSSION: FSWs have high unmet need for effective contraception and unintended pregnancy is common in low- and middle-income countries. Unintended pregnancy can have enduring health and social effects for FSWs, including consequences of unsafe abortion and financial impacts affecting subsequent risk-taking. It is possible that PrEP could negatively impact condom and other contraceptive use among FSWs due to condom substitution, normalization, external pressures or PrEP provision by single-focus services. There are limited empirical data available to assess the impact of PrEP on pregnancy rates in real-life settings. However, pregnancy rates are relatively high in PrEP trials and modelling suggests a potential two-fold increase in condomless sex among FSWs on PrEP, which, given low use of non-barrier contraceptive methods, would increase rates of unintended pregnancy. Opportunities for integrating family planning with PrEP and HIV services may circumvent these concerns and support improved SRHR. Synergies between PrEP and family planning could promote uptake and maintenance for both interventions. Integrating family planning into FSW-focused community-based HIV services is likely to be the most effective model for improving access to non-barrier contraception among FSWs. However, barriers to integration, such as provider skills and training and funding mechanisms, need to be addressed.

conclusionsAs PrEP is scaled up among FSWs, there is growing impetus to consider integrating family planning services with PrEP delivery in order to better meet the diverse SRHR needs of FSWs and to prevent unintended consequences. Programme monitoring combined with research can close data gaps and mobilize adequate resources to deliver comprehensive SRHR services respectful of all women's rights.

Indexed as

Family Planning ServicesPre-Exposure ProphylaxisSex WorkersCondomsContraception BehaviorFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansPregnancyReproductive Health ServicesReproductive RightsSafe SexSexual BehaviorcontraceptionHIV infectionsPre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP)sex workersunplanned pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID32064765
PMCPMC7025091
OpenAlexW3005544581

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.