Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35360893›Full record

ArticleAIDS and behavior2022

HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Implant Stated Preferences and Priorities: Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment Among Women and Adolescent Girls in Gauteng Province, South Africa.

Kristen M Little, Lola Flomen, Homaira Hanif, Sharon M Anderson, Andrea R Thurman, Meredith R Clark, Gustavo F Doncel

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AIDS and behavior, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Assessing Non-Oral PrEP Alternatives Among Young Black Women in the Southern USA.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2026
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kristen M Little *HIV/TB Department, Population Services International (PSI), Washington, DC, USA.
Lola Flomen *Strategy & Insights Department, PSI, 1120 19th Street NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC, 20036, USA. lolaflomen@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4173-6167
Homaira HanifCONRAD, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Sharon M AndersonCONRAD, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Andrea R ThurmanCONRAD, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Meredith R ClarkCONRAD, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Gustavo F DoncelCONRAD, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA.
Eastern Virginia Medical School · USPopulation Services International · USStrategic Insight (United States) · US

Funding

USAID AID-OAA-A-17-00014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For adolescent girls (AG) and young women (YW), adherence barriers may limit the effectiveness of daily oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Due to its low-burden and long-lasting product attributes, PrEP implants could remove some of the critical adherence barriers of oral PrEP products for individuals at risk of HIV. To explore stated preferences for a long-acting PrEP implant, we conducted a quantitative survey and discrete choice experiment with AG (ages 15-17), YW (18-34), and female sex workers (FSW; ≥ 18) in Gauteng Province, South Africa. We completed 600 quantitative surveys across the three subgroups of women. Respondents stated preference for an implant that provided longer HIV protection (24 months versus 6 months) and required a single insertion. They stated that they preferred a biodegradable implant that could be removed within 1 month of insertion. Respondents had no preference for a particular insertion location. Overall, 78% of respondents said they would be likely (33%) or very likely (45%) to use a PrEP implant were one available, with the majority (82%) stating preference for a product that would provide dual protection against HIV and unintended pregnancies. To reduce their risk of HIV, AG, YW, and FSW in our survey reported a strong willingness to use long-acting, highly-effective, dissolvable PrEP implants.

Indexed as

Anti-HIV AgentsHIV InfectionsPre-Exposure ProphylaxisSex WorkersAdolescentFemaleHumansPregnancySouth AfricaSurveys and QuestionnairesAnti-HIV AgentsDiscrete choice experimentHIVPre-exposure prophylaxisSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID35360893
PMCPMC9371991
OpenAlexW4221065466

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.