ArticleBMC public health2025
HIV biomedical prevention knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among U.S. women enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study 2014-2019.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) was approved for use in the US in 2012 and cross-sectional analyses show low uptake among women. However, use of PrEP over time has not been characterized in women. Longitudinal assessments are needed to characterize PrEP use and eligibility.
methodsWe conducted a nested cross-sectional survey (April 2014-October 2015) to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP)/PrEP knowledge, attitudes, and PEP/PrEP use among cisgender women without HIV enrolled in the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS). As few women reported PEP/PrEP use we assessed willingness to use PEP/PrEP. Longitudinally, we determined PrEP use and eligibility based on CDC guidance using semi-annual self-reported risk behaviors collected from 2014 to 2019. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with willingness to use PrEP.
resultsAmong the 716 women who completed the survey the median age was 46 years (IQR 38, 53) and 72% were Black. At baseline, 43% (n = 46/108) of PrEP-eligible women self-identified as medium-high risk for HIV while 8% (n = 47/593) of non-eligible women believed they were at high risk. 36% (n = 264/731) of women were eligible for PrEP at some point between 2014 and 2019. However, only 3% (n = 22/731) of women reported PrEP use. Older age (aOR 0.97 95% CI 0.95-0.99) and ambivalence/shame (aOR 0.37 95% CI 0.16-0.90) were associated with lower willingness to use PrEP. Belief that PrEP prevents HIV infection (aOR 27.03 95% CI 9.68-75.46) and self/healthcare provider-initiated HIV testing in the prior 2-years (aOR 1.76 95% CI 1.15-2.68) were associated with willingness to use PrEP.
conclusionsPrEP uptake among women remains low despite availability and willingness to take PrEP. Eligibility for PrEP varied over time and self-perception of risk was not always congruent with guidelines. Continued efforts are needed to identify those that would benefit from HIV prevention services during routine medical care and develop interventions to increase PrEP prescribing and use.
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.