Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32460804›Full record

ArticleAIDS research and therapy2020

Views among Malawian women about joining HIV prevention clinical trials when pregnant.

Kristen Sullivan, Tiwonge Mtande, Elana Jaffe, Nora Rosenberg, Chifundo Zimba, Irving Hoffman, Maggie Little, Ruth Faden, Anne Drapkin Lyerly

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AIDS research and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Approaches to accelerating the study of new antiretrovirals in pregnancy.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kristen SullivanCenter for Bioethics and Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 333 S. Columbia Street, Campus Box 7240, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. ksullivan@med.unc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0796-078X
Tiwonge MtandeUNC Project Malawi, Tidziwe Centre, Private Bag A-104, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Elana JaffeCenter for Bioethics and Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 333 S. Columbia Street, Campus Box 7240, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Nora RosenbergDepartment of Health Behavior, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 170 Rosenau Hall, 135 Dauer Drive, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Chifundo ZimbaUNC Project Malawi, Tidziwe Centre, Private Bag A-104, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Irving HoffmanInstitute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Bioinformatics Building, 130 Mason Farm Road, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Maggie LittleThe Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, 3700 O Street Northwest, Washington, DC, 20057, USA.
Ruth FadenBerman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, 1809 Ashland Avenue, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Anne Drapkin LyerlyCenter for Bioethics and Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 333 S. Columbia Street, Campus Box 7240, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USGeorgetown University · USJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

The PHASES Project: Pregnancy and HIV/AIDS-Seeking Equitable StudyR01AI108368 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DAY, SUZANNE LOUISE, LYERLY, ANNE DRAPKIN · 2015 to 2024
$6.4M
Integrating Decision Making Studies into HIV Cure Trials: A real-time longitudinal assessmentR01AI127024 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HENDERSON, GAIL E · 2016 to 2019
$2.2M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI108368NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI127024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe pressing need to expand the biomedical HIV prevention evidence base during pregnancy is now increasingly recognized. Women's views regarding participation in such trials and initiating PrEP while pregnant are critical to inform evolving policy and best practices aimed at responsibly expanding evidence-based access for this population.

methodsWe conducted 35 semi-structured interviews with reproductive-aged women in Malawi in the local language, Chichewa. Participants were HIV-negative and purposively sampled to capture a range of experience with research during pregnancy. Women's perspectives on enrolling in three hypothetical HIV prevention trial vignettes while pregnant were explored, testing: (1) oral PrEP (Truvada) (2) a vaginal ring (dapivirine), and (3) a randomized trial comparing the two. The vignettes were read aloud to participants and a simple visual was provided. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, translated, and coded using NVivo 11. Thematic analysis informed the analytic approach.

resultsA majority of women accepted participation in all trials. Women's views on research participation varied largely based on their assessment of whether participation or nonparticipation would best protect their own health and that of their offspring. Women interested in participating described power dynamics with their partner as fueling their HIV exposure concerns and highlighted health benefits of participation-principally, HIV protection and access to testing/treatment and ancillary care, and perceived potential risks of the vignettes as low. Women who were uninterested in participating highlighted potential maternal and fetal health risks of the trial, challenges of justifying prevention use to their partner, and raised some modality-specific concerns. Women also described ways their social networks, sense of altruism and adherence requirements would influence participation decisions.

conclusionsThe majority of participants conveyed strong interest in participating in biomedical HIV prevention research during pregnancy, largely motivated by a desire to protect themselves and their offspring. Our results are consistent with other studies that found high acceptance of HIV prevention products during pregnancy, and support the current direction of HIV research policies and practices that are increasingly aimed at protecting the health of pregnant women and their offspring through responsible research, rather than defaulting to their exclusion.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchPatient SelectionPre-Exposure ProphylaxisAdultClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMalawiMiddle AgedPregnancyWomen's HealthYoung AdultClinical trialsHIV preventionPregnancyQualitative methodsResearch ethicsWomen’s views

Identifiers

PMID32460804
PMCPMC7251879
OpenAlexW3032475056

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.