ArticleImplementation science communications2026
Implementation determinants and outcomes in the Philadelphia TelePrEP Program: a mixed methods study of client and staff perspectives.
Article in Implementation science communications, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective HIV prevention tool, yet uptake and retention among populations vulnerable to HIV acquisition remain below target levels. Telehealth has emerged as a promising strategy to overcome barriers to accessing PrEP. However, significant gaps remain in our understanding of the implementation of telehealth programs for PrEP. This study examines implementation barriers and facilitators in the Philadelphia TelePrEP Program (PTP), assesses program acceptability, usability and satisfaction, and investigates associations between client characteristics and implementation outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods evaluation from October 2023 to February 2025 of the PTP using web-based surveys with 113 participants and in-depth interviews with 5 staff members. We assessed implementation outcomes (i.e., program acceptability, usability, and satisfaction) and explored implementation determinants through qualitative analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We used linear regression to examine associations between sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants and implementation outcomes.
resultsSurvey participants were predominantly cisgender men with diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds. Participants reported high levels of acceptability, usability, and satisfaction with the PTP, though those with less than full-time employment reported significantly lower acceptability and usability compared to those with full-time employment. Mixed-methods analysis identified patient navigators as a central facilitator of program success, with both staff and clients emphasizing their role in creating a supportive, stigma-free care environment. Key implementation barriers included billing complexity, platform integration challenges, and privacy concerns. Although designed as a fully remote program, substantial demand for in-person services (particularly for injectable PrEP) emerged as a central implementation theme, underscoring the need for flexible hybrid service models. Staff also identified gaps in reaching priority populations, including Black and Latine communities, despite the program's broad digital outreach efforts.
conclusionsTelePrEP programs can achieve high user satisfaction when supported by dedicated navigation services and flexible care options. However, realizing the full potential of this model may require additional strategies to enhance program reach, streamline multi-organizational coordination, and support hybrid service models that accommodate diverse patient preferences and socioeconomic circumstances.
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.