ArticlePLOS global public health2025
Understanding PrEP misconceptions and their impact on PrEP initiation and use among pregnant and lactating women in Malawi.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. 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.
- Pre-Exposure prophylaxis knowledge, use and adherence among a US national sample of women.AIDS care · 2026Article
- HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and PEP-in-pocket (PIP) for women: A rodgers' evolutionary concept analysis.Women's health (London, England)Review
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
Mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV remains a challenge in Eastern and Southern Africa. Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a powerful tool to reduce MTCT, but women face barriers to effective use including those related to inaccurate comprehension of PrEP To understand women's misconceptions about PrEP and their potential impact on PrEP use, we conducted interviews with 33 pregnant and lactating women in Malawi using PrEP, and ten PrEP counselors and clinicians. The results indicate that, although pregnant women generally understood PrEP's features and functions, many held misconceptions that persisted over the course of their PrEP use and impacted their perceptions and use of the medication. Some women erroneously believed that PrEP could treat and prevent sexually transmitted infections other than HIV, which motivated some to keep taking PrEP while motivating others to stop using PrEP once their STI had resolved. Some were confused about PrEP's function, with some believing it was the same as antiretroviral therapy for HIV treatment, and others believing that PrEP could be used for overall enhancement of health. Rarer misconceptions included fears that PrEP was connected to satanic practices, could cause cancer, or was solely for individuals engaged in sex work. These misconceptions stemmed from a mix of prior knowledge, societal influences, and miscommunications during counseling sessions. Ensuring accurate knowledge and addressing common misconceptions head-on is crucial to promote continued PrEP use among women. Both clinic- and community-based communication efforts with a particular focus on the difference between PrEP, STI treatments, and ART are needed.
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.