ArticleBMC nursing2020
Understanding the role of nurse practitioners, physician assistants and other nursing staff in HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis care in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMC nursing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of Provider Barriers and Facilitators to Integration of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis into Postpartum Care.AIDS patient care and STDs · 2026Article
- Developing the PATH-GP (Prevention and Testing for HIV in General Practice) intervention: a person-based approach intervention development study to increase HIV testing and PrEP access.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Ameliorating Racial Disparities in HIV Prevention via a Nurse-Led, AI-Enhanced Program for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Utilization Among Black Cisgender Women: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Perspectives on Injectable HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Providers in the United States.AIDS patient care and STDs · 2024Article
- A global perspective of advanced practice nursing research: A review of systematic reviews.PloS one · 2024Review
- Nurse practitioner model of care for the initiation of pre-exposure prophylaxis: A case series study.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Identifying indicators sensitive to primary healthcare nurse practitioner practice: A review of systematic reviews.PloS one · 2023Review
- Challenges to meeting the HIV care needs of older adults in the rural South.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2022Article
- A Brief Educational Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Intervention in an Infectious Disease Clinic: Protocol for a Case Series Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
- Telemedicine Experience for PrEP Care among PrEP-Eligible Women and Their Primary Care Providers during the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022Article
- Scaling up access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): should nurses do the job?The lancet. HIV · 2022Review
- Implementation of a bundle to improve HIV testing during hospitalization for people who inject drugs.Implementation research and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) was approved for primary HIV prevention by the Federal Drug Administration in 2012, PrEP utilization has been suboptimal. A body of literature and programs has emerged to examine the role of nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants and nursing staff in PrEP care. This review aims to understand the current status of non-physician health providers in PrEP care implementation in the United States.
methodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance, we conducted a comprehensive literature search using multiple databases to identify peer-reviewed articles that examined the role of non-physician health providers in the implementation of PrEP. Four major databases of studies using observational study design, randomized control trials and mixed-method study design were screened from November 2019 to January 2020 were searched. Two independent reviewers examined eligibility and conducted data extraction. We employed random-effects model aims to capture variances of estimates across studies.
resultsA total of 26 studies with 15,789 health professionals, including NPs (18, 95% CI = 14,24%), physician assistants (6, 95% CI = 2, 10%), nursing staff (26, 95% CI = 18-34%), and physicians (62,95% CI = 45, 75%), were included in the analysis. The odds of prescribing PrEP to patients among NPs were 40% (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.02,1.92) higher than that among physicians, while the likelihood of being willing to prescribe PrEP was similar. On the other hand, the odds of being aware of PrEP (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.46, 0.87) was 37% less in nursing professionals than that among physicians.
conclusionsAlthough the limited number and scope of existing studies constrained the generalizability of our findings, the pattern of PrEP care implementation among non-physician health providers was described. To achieve wider PrEP care implementation in the U.S., increasing awareness of PrEP among all health providers including both physicians and non-physicians is a key step.
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.