Trial reportPloS one2024
We choose: Adolescent girls and young women's choice for an HIV prevention product in a cross-over randomized clinical trial conducted in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.
Trial report in PloS one, 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.
- Adolescent Girls and Young Women Overcoming Adherence Challenges with Vaginal and Oral PrEP Use: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study from a Crossover Trial in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.AIDS and behavior · 2024Trial
- The Impact of the Vaginal Microbiome and Microbial Metabolites on HIV Transmission at the Female Reproductive Tract Epithelial Barrier.American journal of reproductive immunology (New York, N.Y. : 1989) · 2026Review
- Integrating PrEP and Sexual Reproductive Health Services for Adolescent Girls and Young Women in South Africa: A Scoping Review.AIDS and behavior · 2026Review
- Supporting Oral and Long-Acting HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Decision-Making Among Pregnant Women (MyChoice Intervention): Protocol for 2 Pilot Randomized Controlled Trials.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- A qualitative study of peer education experiences and oral pre-exposure prophylaxis use among adolescent girls and young women at high risk of HIV acquisition in Kampala, Uganda.Frontiers in public health · 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
With new pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) modalities for HIV prevention becoming available, understanding how adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) navigate through PrEP options is essential, including factors underlying their choice. Through 16 focus group discussions (FGDs) and 52 in-depth interviews (IDIs) from REACH, an open-label crossover study in which AGYW were allocated 1:1 (between 06 February 2019 and 18 March 2020) to receive oral PrEP for six months and the dapivirine ring for six months, in a randomized sequence, followed by a 6-month period where either product (or neither) could be chosen, we explored decision-making process and product choice, using a mixed inductive-deductive analytical approach. Key themes included the desire to remain HIV-negative and weighing product attributes through experiential learning. Product triability appeared important in informing product choice as individual circumstances changed or assuaging side effects with a given product. Approved biomedical prevention innovations may also benefit from hands-on experience to help with adoption and use during real-world implementation. Furthermore, support from trusted providers will remain critical as AGYW contemplate navigating through PrEP options and choice.
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.