Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35784260›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

"Whatever is in the ARVs, is Also in the PrEP" Challenges Associated With Oral Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Use Among Female Sex Workers in South Africa.

Nosipho Faith Makhakhe, Yvonne Sliep, Anna Meyer-Weitz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Use Among Cisgender and Transgender Adult Entertainment Workers in Brazil.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nosipho Faith MakhakheFaculty of Arts and Design, Center for General Education, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa.
Yvonne SliepDepartment of Psychology, School of Applied Human Sciences, Howard College, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Anna Meyer-WeitzDepartment of Psychology, School of Applied Human Sciences, Howard College, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
University of KwaZulu-Natal · ZADurban University of Technology · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The national policy on oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for female sex workers (FSWs) was instituted in South Africa in 2016. FSWs were targeted for PrEP due to a Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence of 57.7%, which is higher than the prevalence of 19.07% among the general population. Research from demonstration studies has shown that uptake of PrEP has been slower than anticipated, and the purpose of this study was to explore barriers to the uptake of PrEP among FSWs. Methods: An in-depth qualitative study was conducted with 39 participants, 30 individual participants, and nine focus group participants. Eleven participants consisted of peer educators and two health workers from a sex work and PrEP distribution organization, the rest of the participants (1) were FSWs. Results: The majority of participants mentioned that little distinction was made between PrEP and antiretrovirals (ARVs) taken by FSWs living with HIV. PrEP was not distributed through public health care facilities, and health workers unknowingly labeled PrEP as ARVs. Consequently, health workers seen as experts created suspicion and contributed to the mistrust of PrEP among FSWs due to mixed messages, and equating PrEP to ARVs reduced uptake. Furthermore, failure to make a clear distinction between oral PrEP and ARVs resulted in accusations of lying, denialism, and deception leveled at users of PrEP by FSWs using ARVs, and sometimes by clients and intimate partners. FSWs using PrEP reported feeling stigmatized and thrust into interpersonal conflict with their peers after choosing PrEP, leading to broken relationships, and some resorting to taking PrEP privately or discontinuing PrEP altogether. Conclusion: Pre-exposure prophylaxis as an ARV targeted for the prevention of HIV among high-risk groups was found to be stigmatizing. The distinctive use of PrEP and ARVs should be correctly explained to users to minimize confusion, enable differentiation and reduce interpersonal conflict. Cohesion among sex work organizations and public health care facilities is needed to disseminate the correct knowledge on PrEP. A non-stigmatizing approach to the distribution of PrEP may serve to increase uptake and adherence.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsPre-Exposure ProphylaxisSex WorkersAnti-Retroviral AgentsFemaleHumansSouth AfricaAnti-Retroviral AgentsARVsfemale sex workersHIVpre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)stigma

Identifiers

PMID35784260
PMCPMC9247347
OpenAlexW4283066266

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.