ArticleSociology of health & illness2022
Prescribing as affective clinical practice: Transformations in sexual health consultations through HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.
Article in Sociology of health & illness, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers and Facilitators to Oral HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Use in Australia: A Scoping Review Comparing Findings to Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.AIDS and behavior · 2026Review
- The 'Informed Matter' of Gay and Bisexual Men's (Potential) Use of HIV Antiretrovirals to Prevent COVID-19.Sociology of health & illness · 2025Article
- Mpox Illness Narratives: Stigmatising Care and Recovery During and After an Emergency Outbreak.Qualitative health research · 2024Article
- 'Don't lose it on the bus!': Casting the normative biosexual citizen in early Scottish pre-exposure prophylaxis provision.Sociology of health & illness · 2023Article
- Prescribing as affective clinical practice: Transformations in sexual health consultations through HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis.Sociology of health & illness · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New medicines can transform routines and priorities in clinical practice, but how do clinicians think and feel about these changes, and how does it affect their work? In Australia, the HIV prevention regimen pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been rapidly rolled out, transforming the sexual cultures and practices of users, but less attention has been given to the ways PrEP has reconfigured clinical practice. This paper draws on 28 qualitative semi-structured interviews conducted between 2019 and 2020 with PrEP-providing doctors and nurses in Australia to consider how they have affectively engaged with PrEP and put it into practice. Through a reflexive thematic analysis, we explore how clinicians adapted to PrEP, how the field of HIV prevention has been transformed, and how these developments have changed how clinicians approach patients. While the introduction of PrEP was initially received with uncertainty and shock, clinicians described PrEP as enjoyable to prescribe, and better aligned with the moral duties of sexual health consultations than existing HIV prevention strategies like condoms. Through approaching clinical work as an 'affective practice', we argue for attending not only to how new interventions change expectations and practices, but also how these changes are felt and valued by clinicians.
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.