Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32860150›Full record

ReviewCurrent HIV/AIDS reports2020

Exploring Relative Preferences for HIV Service Features Using Discrete Choice Experiments: a Synthetic Review.

I Eshun-Wilson, H-Y Kim, S Schwartz, M Conte, D V Glidden, E H Geng

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current HIV/AIDS reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06803316 (Optimizing Care Delivery to Support Reengagement in PLWH Returning to HIV Care After Treatment Lapses in Zambia), which is not on this map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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.

NCT06803316 completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Optimizing Care Delivery to Support Reengagement in PLWH Returning to HIV Care After Treatment Lapses in Zambia

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorCentre for Infectious Disease Research in ZambiaRan2022 to 2025Enrolled658ConditionsHIV Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Adherence
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

I Eshun-WilsonDivision of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, Childrens Pl, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA. i.eshun-wilsonova@wustl.edu.
H-Y KimDepartment of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA.
S SchwartzDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
M ConteZucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, USA.
D V GliddenDepartment of Epidemiology, University of California, San Francisco, USA.
E H GengDivision of Infectious Disease, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, Childrens Pl, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewAligning HIV treatment services with patient preferences can promote long-term engagement. A rising number of studies solicit such preferences using discrete choice experiments, but have not been systematically reviewed to seek generalizable insights. Using a systematic search, we identified eleven choice experiments evaluating preferences for HIV treatment services published between 2004 and 2020. RECENT

findingsAcross settings, the strongest preference was for nice, patient-centered providers, for which participants were willing to trade considerable amounts of time, money, and travel distance. In low- and middle-income countries, participants also preferred collecting antiretroviral therapy (ART) less frequently than 1 monthly, but showed no strong preference for 3-compared with 6-month refill frequency. Facility waiting times and travel distances were also important but were frequently outranked by stronger preferences. Health facility-based services were preferred to community- or home-based services, but this preference varied by setting. In high-income countries, the availability of unscheduled appointments was highly valued. Stigma was rarely explored and costs were a ubiquitous driver of preferences. While present improvement efforts have focused on designs to enhance access (reduced waiting time, travel distance, and ART refill frequency), few initiatives focus on the patient-provider interaction, which represents a promising critical area for inquiry and investment. If HIV programs hope to truly deliver patient-centered care, they will need to incorporate patient preferences into service delivery strategies. Discrete choice experiments can not only inform such strategies but also contribute to prioritization efforts for policy-making decisions.

Indexed as

Health ServicesAdultAnti-Retroviral AgentsAppointments and SchedulesChoice BehaviorDelivery of Health CareFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMalePatient-Centered CarePatient PreferencePhysician-Patient RelationsAnti-Retroviral AgentsDifferentiated careDiscrete choice experimentHIVPreferenceReviewService delivery

Identifiers

PMID32860150
PMCPMC7497362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.