Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41911315›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2026

Effect of enhanced peer PrEP referral with HIV self-testing delivery among young Kenyan women: A randomized controlled trial of peer networks.

Katrina F Ortblad, Njeri Wairimu, Carlos Culquichicon, Irene Njeru, Rachel C Malen, Adriana M Reedy, Obinna Ekwunife, Maureen McGowan, Margaret Mwangi, Agata Muthoni and 5 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04982250 (Peer PrEP Referral + HIV Self-test Delivery for PrEP Initiation Among Young Kenyan Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT04982250 nacompletednot on this map

Peer PrEP Referral + HIV Self-test Delivery for PrEP Initiation Among Young Kenyan Women: Pilot Study & Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorFred Hutchinson Cancer CenterRan2022 to 2024Enrolled211ConditionsHIV PreventionArmsEnhanced peer PrEP referral + HIVST delivery
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

15 authors.

Katrina F OrtbladPublic Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5675-8836
Njeri WairimuCenter for Clinical Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0597-2736
Carlos CulquichiconDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5349-3521
Irene NjeruCenter for Clinical Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Rachel C MalenPublic Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7262-9029
Adriana M ReedyPublic Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6848-5258
Obinna EkwunifeDivision of Population Health, Department of Medicine, Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, Getzville, New York, United States of America.
Maureen McGowanHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7630-9862
Margaret MwangiCenter for Clinical Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Agata MuthoniCenter for Clinical Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6158-2326
Dorcas KiboiCenter for Clinical Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Sarah NjorogeCenter for Clinical Research, Kenya Medical Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.
Fei GaoVaccine and Infectious Diseases Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6797-5468
Jared M BaetenDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Kenneth NgureDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8062-0933

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdolescent girls and young women (AGYW) in Africa experience high HIV acquisition risk and low engagement in prevention services. Knowledge of HIV-negative status paired with peer support might motivate AGYW-who are highly socially connected-to initiate HIV prevention services, including pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). METHODS AND

findingsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04982250) of AGYW peer networks in Central Kenya. Index peers aged 16-24 years who had used oral PrEP in the past 12 months were randomized 1:1 to: (1) enhanced peer referral: group training on PrEP referral strategies and delivery of HIV self-testing (HIVST) kits (n = 8 kits, 2 kits/peer); or (2) standard peer referral: informal PrEP referral strategies. Index peers were encouraged to refer four peers who could benefit from PrEP. Outcomes for referred peers-PrEP initiation (primary), PrEP continuation (i.e., month one refills), and HIV testing (any form following referral)-were reported by index peers three months later. Implementation outcomes and costs were also assessed. Risk differences (RDs) were estimated using generalized linear mixed-effects regression models with study group fixed effects and index peer random effects. From May 3, 2023 to February 16, 2024, 316 index peers were screened and 82 enrolled/randomized (median age 22 years, IQR 20-23): 40 to the enhanced group and 42 to the standard. No index peers were lost to follow-up. Index peers reported outcomes for 241 referred peers (median age 22 years, IQR 21-24): 137 in the enhanced group and 104 in the standard. At follow-up, there were no significant differences in PrEP initiation between the enhanced group (30%, 41/137) and the standard (41%, 41/104; RD -6%, 95% CI [-26%, 11%], p = 0.51). Enhanced peer referral was not associated with PrEP continuation (RD 1%, 95% CI [-10%, 13%], p = 0.82) but was associated with increased recent HIV testing (RD 39%, 95% CI [24%, 54%], p < 0.001). Three referred peers, all in the enhanced group, tested HIV-positive; two social harms (verbal abuse among index peers, one in each group) were reported. Index and referred peers in both study groups found enhanced peer referral acceptable and feasible, but it cost almost eight times more per peer referred to PrEP than standard referral ($23 versus $3 USD). Relying on index peers to report outcomes for referred peers was a study limitation.

conclusionsEnhanced peer PrEP referral with training and HIVST delivery did not increase PrEP initiation among Kenyan AGYW but was associated with increased HIV testing, suggesting opportunities to combine peer-delivered HIVST with additional implementation strategies to improve AGYW's PrEP engagement.

Indexed as

Anti-HIV AgentsHIV InfectionsHIV TestingPeer GroupPre-Exposure ProphylaxisReferral and ConsultationAdolescentFemaleHumansKenyaYoung AdultAnti-HIV Agents

Identifiers

PMID41911315
PMCPMC13046272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.