ArticlePloS one2022
Effectiveness of three delivery models for promoting access to pre-exposure prophylaxis in HIV-1 serodiscordant couples in Nigeria.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Expanding HIV Prevention: Exploring Community Pharmacists' Willingness to Provide PrEP in Nigeria.AIDS and behavior · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of three models for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) service delivery to HIV-1 serodiscordant couples in Nigeria.
methods297 heterosexual HIV-1 serodiscordant couples were recruited into three PrEP delivery models and followed up for 18 months. The models were i) Outpatient clinic model providing PreP in routine outpatient care; ii) Antiretroviral therapy (ART) clinic model providing PrEP in ART clinics; and iii) Decentralized care model providing PrEP through primary and secondary care centres linked to a tertiary care centre. The primary effectiveness endpoint was incident HIV-1 infection. The HIV incidence before and after the study was compared and the incidence rate ratio computed for each model. Survival analysis was conducted, Cox regression analysis was used to compare the factors that influenced couple retention in each of the models. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate the median retention time (in months) of the study participants in each of the study models, and log-rank test for equality of survival functions was conducted to test for significant differences among the three models.
resultsThere was no significant difference (p>0.05) in the couple retention rates among the three models. At months 3, 6 and 9, adherence of the HIV-1-infected partners to ART was highest in the decentralized model, whereas at months 9 and 12, the outpatient model had the highest proportion of HIV-1- uninfected partners adhering to PrEP (p<0.001). The HIV incidence per 100 person-years was zero in the general outpatient clinic and ART clinic models and 1.6 (95% CI: 0.04-9.1) in the decentralized clinic model. The difference in the observed and expected incidence rate was 4.3 (95% CI: 0.44-39.57) for the decentralized clinic model.
conclusionAlthough incidence of HIV seroconversion was highest in the decentralized clinic model, this difference may be due to the higher sexual risk behavior among study participants in the decentralized model rather than the type of service delivery. The study findings imply that any of the models can effectively deliver PrEP services.
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.