Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37439061›Full record

ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2023

Who prefers what? Correlates of preferences for next-generation HIV prevention products among a national U.S. sample of young men who have sex with men.

Katie B Biello, Pablo K Valente, Daniel Teixeira da Silva, Willey Lin, Ryan Drab, Lisa Hightow-Weidman, Kenneth H Mayer, José A Bauermeister, iTech Team

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Katie B BielloDepartments of Behavioral & Social Sciences and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5017-5699
Pablo K ValenteDepartments of Behavioral & Social Sciences and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
Daniel Teixeira da SilvaDepartment of Family & Community Health, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Willey LinDepartment of Family & Community Health, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Ryan DrabDepartment of Family & Community Health, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Lisa Hightow-WeidmanCollege of Nursing, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Kenneth H MayerThe Fenway Institute, Fenway Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7460-733X
José A BauermeisterDepartment of Family & Community Health, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
iTech TeamDepartments of Behavioral & Social Sciences and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.
University of Pennsylvania · USBrown University · USFenway Health · USFlorida State University · USRhode Island Department of Health · USUniversity of Connecticut · US

Funding

Translational ScienceP30AI042853 · NIAID · MIRIAM HOSPITAL · PI CURT G BECKWITH, DEBBIE M. CHENG · 1998 to 2026
$51.7M
The UNC/Emory Center for Innovative Technology (iTech) across the prevention and care continuumU19HD089881 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HIGHTOW-WEIDMAN, LISA B, SULLIVAN, PATRICK SEAN · 2016 to 2022
$35.8M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI042853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been available for young people for over a decade, yet only ∼15% of young people in the United States with indications for PrEP have a prescription for it. Next-generation PrEP modalities may address some of the challenges of daily oral PrEP. However, preferences for these products are unknown.

methodsFrom October 2020 to June 2021, we conducted an online survey of 737 cisgender, young men who have sex with men (age 15-24 years) without HIV across the United States who reported same-sex attraction or consensual sex with another man in the past 6 months. Participants completed a conjoint experiment comparing daily oral pills, event-driven oral pills, event-driven rectal douches, intramuscular injections, intravenous broadly neutralizing antibody (bnAb) infusions and subcutaneous implants. Participants ranked the products from most to least preferred. Exploded logit models examined the association between ranked preferences of PrEP modalities and socio-demographic and behavioural characteristics.

resultsParticipants' mean age was 21 years (SD = 2.3), and 56% identified as White. Nineteen percent were currently taking daily oral PrEP, and another 9% had previously taken it. Participants prioritized efficacy, absence of side effects and costs in the conjoint analyses. Daily oral PrEP had the highest preference ranking, followed by event-driven oral (OR = 0.89, p = 0.058), injectable (OR = 0.83, p = 0.005), implant (OR = 0.48, p < 0.0001), bnAb infusions (OR = 0.38, p < 0.0001) and rectal douches (OR = 0.24, p < 0.0001). There were differences in PrEP preferences across age, insurance status, sexual behaviour, PrEP use history, HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing history, and STI diagnoses (omnibus tests: p < 0.05). Participants also provided reasons for selecting their top product choice: ease of use for those who chose daily oral (99%) and daily event-driven (98.5%); feel more protected against HIV for those who chose injectable (95.4%) and implants (100%); not worrying about forgetting to take it for those who chose bnAbs (93.8%); and being able to stop taking it when they want for those who chose rectal douche (90.9%).

conclusionsNext-generation modalities were less likely to be preferred over daily oral PrEP, with differences in the magnitude by socio-demographic and behavioural characteristics. Given the low uptake of daily oral PrEP, end-users' preferences for and concerns about PrEP products must be understood to ensure high acceptability and penetration.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsSexual and Gender MinoritiesAdolescentAdultBroadly Neutralizing AntibodiesHomosexuality, MaleHumansMaleSexual BehaviorYoung AdultBroadly Neutralizing Antibodiesadolescentsconjoint experimentHIV preventionmen who have sex with menpre-exposure prophylaxisproduct preferences

Identifiers

PMID37439061
PMCPMC10339006
OpenAlexW4384126558

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.