Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33630909›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

Awareness of and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) among people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men in India: Results from a multi-city cross-sectional survey.

Ashwin Belludi, Allison M McFall, Sunil Suhas Solomon, David D Celentano, Shruti H Mehta, A K Srikrishnan, M Suresh Kumar, Suniti Solomon, Gregory M Lucas

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

9 authors.

Ashwin BelludiDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Allison M McFallDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Sunil Suhas SolomonDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
David D CelentanoDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Shruti H MehtaDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-2523-0959
A K SrikrishnanY.R. Gaitonde Center for AIDS Research and Education, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
M Suresh KumarY.R. Gaitonde Center for AIDS Research and Education, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Suniti SolomonY.R. Gaitonde Center for AIDS Research and Education, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Gregory M LucasDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3013-4339

Funding

Vaccine Response and Immunotherapeutics SWGP30AI094189 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Richard E. Chaisson · 2012 to 2026
$67.0M
Strategies to improve the HIV care continuum among key populations in IndiaR01DA041034 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI LUCAS, GREGORY M, MEHTA, SHRUTI H · 2015 to 2021
$6.7M
Integrated Care Clinics for IDUs in India: a cluster randomized trialR01DA032059 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI LUCAS, GREGORY M, MEHTA, SHRUTI H · 2011 to 2015
$6.3M
Preventing HIV Infection Among MSM in Southern IndiaR01MH089266 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI CELENTANO, DAVID D. · 2010 to 2015
$2.9M
Treatment outcomes and comorbidity in HIV-infected IDUK24DA035684 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI LUCAS, GREGORY M · 2014 to 2024
$1.5M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI094189NIDA NIH HHS K24 DA035684NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA032059NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA041034NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH089266
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is effective in reducing HIV transmission among key populations. In India, where PrEP is not currently part of the national HIV program, little is known about PrEP awareness, willingness to use PrEP, and barriers to uptake among people who inject drugs (PWID) and men who have sex with men (MSM).

methodsWe used respondent-driven sampling to accrue PWID and MSM in 22 sites from August 2016 to May 2017. Participants were asked about awareness of PrEP, willingness to use PrEP (following a brief description) and reasons why they might not be willing to use PrEP. Participants were also queried on preferences for PrEP delivery modality (oral vs. injectable). Multi-level logistic regression models were used to determine participant correlates of willingness to use PrEP. Estimates were weighted for the sampling method.

resultsA total of 10,538 PWID and 8,621 MSM who self-reported being HIV-negative were included in the analysis. Only 6.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.9, 6.3) of PWID and 8.0% of MSM (95% CI: 7.7, 8.4) were aware of PrEP. However, willingness to use PrEP was substantially higher in both groups: 52.4% of PWID and 67.6% of MSM. Participants commonly cited a perceived low risk for acquiring HIV infection, being perceived by others as being HIV-positive, and side effects as reasons why they would be unwilling to use PrEP. Among PWID, sharing needles and hazardous alcohol use were associated with increased willingness to use PrEP. Among MSM, having a main male partner and injection drug use were associated with increased willingness to use PrEP. Preference for daily oral or monthly injectable PrEP was similar among MSM (39.6%% vs. 41.7%,), while PWID were more likely to prefer oral to injectable administration routes (56.3% vs. 31.1%).

conclusionsAs India plans to roll-out of PrEP in the public sector, our multi-city survey of PWID and MSM highlights the need for key population-focused education campaigns about PrEP and self-assessment of risk.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-HIV AgentsAwarenessCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHIV InfectionsHomosexuality, MaleHumansIllicit DrugsIndiaMalePre-Exposure ProphylaxisSexual and Gender MinoritiesSexual PartnersSubstance Abuse, IntravenousAnti-HIV AgentsIllicit Drugs

Identifiers

PMID33630909
PMCPMC7906475

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.