ArticleBMC public health2026
Acceptability and implementation considerations for community pharmacy-based delivery of pre-exposure prophylaxis and antiretroviral therapy in Dar es Salaam: a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design.
Article in BMC public health, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity pharmacies (CPs) may provide a decentralized platform for refills of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and antiretroviral therapy (ART). However, evidence on their acceptability and implementation requirements remains limited. This study assessed the acceptability of using CP for PrEP and ART refills and explored stakeholder perspectives on feasibility to inform potential scale-up in urban Tanzania.
methodsA sequential explanatory mixed-methods design study of community pharmacies was conducted in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Quantitative surveys were first conducted among women engaged in transactional sex and people living with HIV (PLHIV) to assess the acceptability and feasibility of obtaining PrEP or refilling ART through CPs. These findings then informed qualitative data collection, which included in-depth interviews with women engaged in transactional sex (TS), pharmacists, pharmacy owners, and key informants such as policymakers, as well as focus-group discussions with PLHIV. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically to contextualize and explain the quantitative results.
resultsNearly 74.2% of the 93 women engaged in TS expressed willingness to receive PrEP from CPs. Among PLHIV, 66.0% of the 341 participants reported willingness to refill ART at community pharmacies. Across both groups, major concerns included stigma related to HIV status or perceived sexual behavior and potential user fees. Qualitative findings (N = 27) highlighted perceived advantages of pharmacies such as proximity, shorter waiting times, flexible opening hours, and the ability to obtain services discreetly within routine care settings. However, participants emphasized that acceptability would depend on assured confidentiality, free or affordable treatment, private consultation spaces, and specialized HIV training for pharmacy staff. Stakeholders further identified regulatory and financing uncertainties, infrastructure constraints, workforce shortages, medication misuse risks, and the need for digital health record systems as implementation challenges.
conclusionsCPs were perceived as promising complementary platforms for PrEP delivery, particularly to improve prevention access among high-risk populations, and for ART refills mainly among stable clients. However, successful integration into national HIV programs will require robust regulatory frameworks, sustainable financing, provider training, and systems to safeguard confidentiality and continuity of care. Implementation research is needed to evaluate feasibility, impact, and safety.
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.