Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41143171›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in reproductive health2025

Qualitative and quantitative research on preferences and perceptions regarding HIV post-exposure prophylaxis among young women, men, female sex workers, members of the LGBTQ + community and people who inject drugs in Kenya, Nigeria and Zimbabwe.

Moushira El-Sahn, Rose Elliott, Mona El-Sahn, Ignacio Garcia-Gurtubay, Karen Kong, Trisha Wood Santos, Raphael Mulwa, Elizabeth Muthoka, Jeff Lucas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Moushira El-SahnRoutes2Results, London, United Kingdom.
Rose ElliottRoutes2Results, London, United Kingdom.
Mona El-SahnRoutes2Results, London, United Kingdom.
Ignacio Garcia-GurtubayRoutes2Results, London, United Kingdom.
Karen KongRoutes2Results, London, United Kingdom.
Trisha Wood SantosTrisha Wood Santos Consulting, LLC, Seattle, WA, United States.
Raphael MulwaInfotrak Research & Consulting Limited, Nairobi, Kenya.
Elizabeth MuthokaInfotrak Research & Consulting Limited, Nairobi, Kenya.
Jeff LucasRoutes2Results, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) recently updated its guidelines for HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). These guidelines recommend community delivery and task-sharing for PEP administration and suggest enhanced adherence counseling for those who initiate PEP. This work provides insights into considerations for optimizing people's knowledge, demand for, use of and adherence to PEP through new channels. This mixed-method study examined five research questions concerning the perceptions and experiences of various groups regarding accessing and utilizing PEP and explored opinions on alternate delivery options to broaden access. Methods: The total number of end-users interviewed for this study via qualitative and quantitative interview methodologies was 1,156. We spoke with a total of 236 end-users through qualitative Focus Groups (FGs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) and surveyed 920 end-users with a questionnaire in Kenya, Nigeria and Zimbabwe, including members of key populations (Female Sex Workers, Members of the LGBTQ + Community, People Who Inject Drugs). Results: Prompted awareness of PEP varied across the study countries (56.2% overall). Healthcare providers (doctors and nurses) were cited by end-user respondents as primary sources of information on HIV and PEP. PEP information evaluation revealed that condomless sex or condom malfunction were the emergency situations that resonated most with end-users. The majority (86.4%) cited a perceived likelihood to use PEP if exposed to HIV. A general hospital was deemed most acceptable for PEP access by end-users in all three countries (81.2%); clinical routes were perceived as preferable in terms of broadening access to PEP, with key reasons being convenience (68.2%), trustworthiness (56.5%) and knowledge (56.5%). End-users emphasized the need for consistent, correct, and supportive interaction points with healthcare providers to complete PEP treatment and follow-up. Conclusions: WHO's recent update to the PEP guidelines recommends community-based distribution and task-sharing of PEP. Uptake is dependent on confidentiality and privacy of services as well as on increasing awareness and knowledge of the PEP pathway. Provision of PEP by healthcare providers needs to incorporate multiple end-user touch/access-points with emotional support for greater adherence, and our study highlights the different preferences and access contexts among end-users for PEP.

Indexed as

drug usershealth-disparate minority and vulnerable populationsHIV preventionsexual and gender minoritiessex workerstransgender personsWHO

Identifiers

PMID41143171
PMCPMC12546014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.