Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35844771›Full record

ReviewEClinicalMedicine2022

Preferences for pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments.

Luh Putu Lila Wulandari, Shi Yi He, Christopher K Fairley, Benjamin R Bavinton, Heather Marie-Schmidt, Virginia Wiseman, Rebecca Guy, Weiming Tang, Lei Zhang, Jason J Ong

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  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

10 authors.

Luh Putu Lila WulandariThe Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Shi Yi HeChina-Australia Joint Research Center for Infectious Diseases, School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi'an, China.
Christopher K FairleyMelbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Benjamin R BavintonThe Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Heather Marie-SchmidtUNAIDS Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.
Virginia WisemanThe Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Rebecca GuyThe Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Weiming TangDepartment of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States.
Lei ZhangChina-Australia Joint Research Center for Infectious Diseases, School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi'an, China.
Jason J OngChina-Australia Joint Research Center for Infectious Diseases, School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi'an, China.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V030825/1World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: We aimed to systematically review the health preference literature using discrete choice experiments (DCEs), an attribute-based stated preference method, to investigate patient preferences for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Methods: A search in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Embase was conducted on July 1, 2021, and updated on November 3, 2021. We used two concepts to create our search strategy: (1) discrete choice experiments/conjoint analysis/best-worst scaling, and (2) HIV PrEP.The study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021267026). Findings: In total, 1060 studies were identified, and 18 were included in the analysis. Various attributes were examined, including dosing regimen, type of PrEP products, side effects, other side benefits, cost, effectiveness, dispensing venue, and additional support services. Dosing frequency, cost, the effectiveness of PrEP, dispensing venue, and side effects were the most common attributes examined in DCEs. Despite significant heterogeneity in preferences across subpopulations, overall, the most important attributes were cost (28%, 5/18), effectiveness (28%, 5/18) followed by dosing frequency (17%, 3/18). Interpretation: Notably, in studies where all of these three attributes were examined, some individuals would trade effectiveness for cost or vice versa. Ensuring PrEP is low cost or free, widely disseminating information of its effectiveness and advancements in reducing dosing frequency could accelerate the uptake of PrEP for those who would benefit from PrEP the most. Funding: None.

Indexed as

Discrete choice experimentHIVPre-exposure prophylaxisPreferencesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35844771
PMCPMC9284393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.