Trial reportAIDS care2025
Acceptability and feasibility of a urine-based tenofovir adherence assay for monitoring and providing feedback on PrEP adherence in Kenya.
Trial report in AIDS care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03935464 (Pilot Trial to Examine the Feasibility, Acceptability and Impact of an Intervention Using a New Urine-based Tenofovir Adherence Assay), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Pilot Trial to Examine the Feasibility, Acceptability and Impact of an Intervention Using a New Urine-based Tenofovir Adherence Assay
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective measures of oral PrEP adherence - especially point-of-care (POC) measures that enable real-time assessment, intervention, and feedback - have the potential to improve adherence. Our team previously developed and validated a novel urine-based POC metric of PrEP adherence. In this study, we sought to determine whether this assay is acceptable and feasible among women taking PrEP and PrEP providers in Kenya. We conducted a trial comparing PrEP adherence counseling using the assay (intervention) versus standard-of-care counseling. We conducted in-depth interviews (IDIs) with intervention-arm participants (n = 20), and focus group discussions (n = 18) after the final (12-month) follow-up visit. We also conducted IDIs with purposively-sampled healthcare providers (HCPs) (n = 8) who administered the assay. The assay was highly acceptable among participants and HCPs as it was perceived to be accurate, could provide evidence of adherence, provides real-time results, and improves participant and provider relationship. HCPs reported that the assay facilitated counseling, seemed to increase adherence, and would be feasible to implement in routine care settings. Both participants and HCPs reported concerns about the assay related to the fear of being stigmatized for negative results, and test accessibility. Future studies should evaluate the impact of this novel test on adherence patterns over time in diverse populations.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03935464.
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.