ArticleHIV medicine2026
Preference for different PrEP formulations: A cross-sectional study in a PrEP cohort in Spain.
Article in HIV medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo gain a better understanding of PrEP-users' preference for long-acting vs. oral PrEP formulation.
methodsFrom April 2023 to January 2024, participants who were prescribed PrEP completed an anonymous, structured, self-administered, cross-sectional survey as part of their routine PrEP care in a hospital setting in Madrid, Spain. Inclusion criteria were attendance at the clinic for PrEP care and the ability to understand the Spanish language. Eligibility was not restricted by age. A convenience sample of 200 participants was used. The ethics committee approved a waiver of written consent. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to analyse the data.
resultsA sample of 201 participants completed the survey, of which 193 (96.5%) were male and most were 30-39 years old (48.8%). The response rate was estimated to be more than 90%. Among participants, 74.9% preferred LA-PrEP (53.9% preferred a subcutaneous (SC) injection every 6 months and 21.0% preferred an intramuscular (IM) injection every 2 months). Participants reported that LA-PrEP is more practical, indicating fewer visits to the clinic as a primary reason (67.4%). 29.4% of participants were aware of IM LA-PrEP, 10.0% of SC LA-PrEP and 10.4% were familiar with both. Respondents who selected LA-PrEP were more often under 40 years of age (p = 0.016) compared to those who preferred oral PrEP (73.7% vs. 61.2%, respectively). Limitations included the use of a cross-sectional design, a homogeneous sample and the use of one study location, among others.
conclusionLA-PrEP is the preferred form of PrEP for the majority of respondents.
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.