ArticleHRB open research2024
Protocol for a systematic search and critical discourse analysis of research on national HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis programmes among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men.
Article in HRB open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 20-minute neighbourhoods, criticisms, conspiracy theories, and health: a critical discourse analysis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Protocol for a systematic search and critical discourse analysis of research on national HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis programmes among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men.HRB open research · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a medication that prevents the acquisition of HIV, most commonly taken in the form of a pill. PrEP is an efficacious tool for HIV prevention, including among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM). PrEP is often provided through formal PrEP programmes. Research on these programmes may employ discourses shaped by heteronormativity and homophobia. Given that expert language influences how HIV prevention is understood and delivered, problematic discourses in research likely extend into PrEP implementation. This study will use critical discourse analysis (CDA) to explore research on PrEP programme implementation for gbMSM. Within this literature, we will identify interpretive repertoires used to discuss gbMSM; the subject positions afforded to gbMSM; and the implications of these interpretive repertoires and subject positions for gbMSM engaging with HIV PrEP programmes. Methods: Systematic search methods identified relevant articles through timebound searching (2012-2023) in ProQuest ASSIA, EBSCOhost PsycInfo, OVID Medline, OVID Embase, and EBSCOhost CINAHL, with forward and backward citation searching of included studies. Grey literature will be identified through ProQuest and Google Scholar. Screening will be conducted by two independent reviewers, who will conduct random partial double screening for titles and abstracts and for all full text articles. Data will be analysed and synthesised using CDA informed by critical realism (CR). CDA focuses on relationships between language and power, including how language enables inequality. The analytic process will explore the background of included studies, identify themes, and analyse external and internal relations in included studies. Conclusions: Highlighting issues with discourses in PrEP implementation may enhance reflective engagement with assumptions underlying this research, preventing further stigmatisation of gbMSM's sexual and protective practices. As PrEP programmes become more common, diverse and inclusive perspectives in PrEP programme research may inform interventions that enhance their acceptability and implementation.
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.