Observational studyJournal of primary care & community health
Differences Between General Internal Medicine and Family Medicine Physicians' Initiation of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis.
Observational study in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Opportunities for Prescribing Pre-exposure Prophylaxis at Two Academic Medical Centers in a High Priority Jurisdiction for Ending the HIV Epidemic.AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- Breast cancer screening among individuals with a substance use disorder: a retrospective cohort study.Family practice · 2025Article
- Incidence of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Between 2016 and 2023: A Retrospective Cohort.Psychiatric research and clinical practice · 2025Article
- Increasing trends in utilization of physical and occupational therapy services in early Parkinson's disease.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePreexposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) is under-utilized in primary care. Given differences in treatment approaches for other conditions between family medicine (FM) and general internal medicine (GIM), this study compared PrEP-prescribing between FM and GIM physicians.
methodsDe-identified electronic health record data from a multi-state health care system was used in this retrospective observational study. The time period from 1/1/13 to 9/30/21 was used to identify PrEP eligible patients using measures of current sexually transmitted disease and condomless sex at the time of eligibility. Receipt of PrEP was measured in the 12 months after PrEP eligibility. The odds of receiving PrEP in GIM as compared to FM was computed before and after adjusting for demographics and physical and psychiatric comorbidities.
resultsThe majority of eligible patients were 18 to 39 years of age, 60.9% were female and 71.6% were White race. Among PrEP eligible patients, 1.1% received PrEP in the first year after index date. Receiving PrEP was significantly more likely among patients treated in GIM versus FM (OR = 2.30; 95% CI:1.63-3.25). After adjusting for covariates, this association remained statistically significant (OR = 2.02; 95% CI:1.41-2.89).
conclusionsPrEP is grossly under-utilized in primary care. The majority of Americans enter the health care system through primary care and not through HIV providers or other specialties. Therefore, educational interventions are needed to increase confidence and knowledge and to encourage PrEP prescribing by FM and GIM physicians.
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.