ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Patient preferences for long-acting HIV treatment: a preference heterogeneity assessment.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Heterogeneity of patient preferences for long-acting HIV treatment among people with HIV in Kenya.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Exploring provider preferences in the design of HIV treatment packages integrating long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapy in New York Ryan White Part A medical case management programs: A discrete choice experiment.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- HIV Treatment and Program Preferences Among Ryan White Clients in New York City in the Era of Long-Acting Injectable ART: A Discrete Choice Experiment.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Patient preferences for long-acting antiretroviral treatment among people with HIV in Kenya: a discrete choice experiment.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLong-acting antiretroviral therapy (LA-ART) is an emerging alternative to daily oral ART pills that may improve HIV treatment adherence. We studied preference heterogeneity for LA-ART among people with HIV (PWH) in western Washington State and Atlanta, Georgia to determine how preference heterogeneity was related to individual characteristics.
methodsWe recruited 699 PWH to complete a survey including 17 choice-tasks, each of which included two hypothetical LA-ART alternatives and current daily oral therapy. Each hypothetical alternative was defined by mode (long-acting [LA] oral pills, subcutaneous injections, intramuscular injections, and implants), frequency, treatment location (home, clinic, or pharmacy), injection pain, pre-treatment time undetectable, pre-treatment reaction testing, and late-dose leeway. We fitted a latent class model to the data and investigated associations between class membership and individual characteristics.
resultsOur sample had three classes which were defined by their treatment preferences. Two classes preferred LA-ART over current treatment: the LA-Implant class (29%) and the LA-Oral-or-Injection class (35%). In contrast, the Daily-or-LA-Oral class (36%) preferred current treatment or LA oral pills taken at home. Compared to the third class, participants from the other two were younger, more educated, less adherent to current ART, and less averse to injections. Further, LA-Implant participants were less likely to be virally suppressed and had easier clinic access. LA-Oral-or-Injection participants had a higher prevalence of psychotic disorders.
conclusionThese results provide a deeper understanding of the preference landscape for LA-ART and can aid in the development of interventions better aligned with individual preferences.
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.