ArticleAIDS and behavior2024
Weighing the Options: Which PrEP (Pre-exposure Prophylaxis) Modality Attributes Influence Choice for Young Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States?
Article in AIDS and behavior, 2024. 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.
- Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Acceptability of a Tenofovir Rectal Microbicide Douche Among Young Men Who Have Sex With Men: The DREAM ATN Study (ATN 163).The Journal of infectious diseases · 2025Trial
- Interest in Long-Acting PrEP by Methamphetamine Use Among Men Who Have Sex with Men in Four Western US Cities.AIDS and behavior · 2026Article
- When scientific constraints and real-world implementation collide: Lessons from a hybrid type 3 study of a digital, direct-to-consumer HIV prevention program.Research square · 2026Article
- Assessing the Acceptability of a Tenofovir-Based Rectal Microbicide Douche among Young Men who Have Sex with Men: Results from ATN-DREAM (ATN 163).AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- Characterizing Event-Driven PrEP Use and Investigating its Association with Experiences of PrEP-Related Barriers Among a US National Sample of PrEP Users.AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is effective in preventing HIV transmission, but uptake and adherence among young men who have sex with men (YMSM) remains suboptimal. New PrEP formulations may enhance PrEP use, but little is known about their acceptability. We enrolled 39 cis- and transgender YMSM (age 18-34) from Boston, MA; Jackson, MS; Birmingham, AL; and New Orleans, LA, who participated in video-based focus groups (n = 30) or in-depth interviews (n = 9) to examine how new PrEP products (e.g., injections, monthly pills, implants) are perceived and might be improved for YMSM. Focus groups were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using grounded theory and content analysis. Nearly half (46%) of participants were Black; 11% identified as Hispanic. Seventy-nine percent were PrEP experienced. Product preference was driven by the desire for flexible, safe, effective, and affordable PrEP options. A majority of participants preferred subcutaneous injections every 6 months or monthly pills dispersed in 3 or 4 doses. Subcutaneous injections and batched monthly pills were favored by those with demanding schedules and those who desired fewer provider visits; monthly pills were more appealing for those who feared needles. Despite broad preferences for longer-acting products for convenience, participants raised concerns regarding side effects and waning protection after missed doses. Participants felt that more education about safety and efficacy profiles of new products could influence their attitudes. These findings suggest that it is important to prioritize YMSM's dynamic lifestyles during product development, and that product safety and efficacy information should be accessible in youth-friendly language.
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.