ReviewFrontiers in public health2026
Healthcare workers' perspectives on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis delivery in Sub-Saharan Africa: implications for injectable formulation rollout-a narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Long-acting injectable Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), particularly cabotegravir, presents a promising HIV prevention option in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where HIV prevalence remains high. As frontline providers, healthcare workers (HCWs) are central to PrEP delivery. Given the emerging introduction of injectable PrEP in SSA, this review examines HCW perspectives on PrEP delivery broadly, including both oral and injectable formulations, with particular attention to how oral PrEP implementation experiences inform injectable PrEP readiness. Methods: A narrative review was conducted with a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and Google Scholar for English-language studies published 2020-2025. Eligible studies comprised qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods primary research that examined healthcare workers' knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, and readiness to deliver HIV PrEP in SSA. Relevant studies were identified, reviewed, and analyzed thematically to identify key patterns and implementation considerations. Results: A total of 742 records were identified across databases, and following review, 5 primary studies met the scope criteria, all examining oral PrEP implementation in Uganda, South Africa, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. Findings revealed varied HCW awareness and knowledge, often influenced by prior exposure to pilot initiatives. Attitudes were generally positive, emphasizing PrEP's potential to enhance adherence and reduce stigma. Reported barriers included limited training, inadequate infrastructure, increased workload, and the absence of clinical guidelines. Key facilitators included task-shifting, government commitment, targeted capacity-building, and peer-led learning. These oral PrEP implementation lessons directly inform the readiness of injectable PrEP rollout. Conclusion: Healthcare workers in SSA display positive attitudes but uneven readiness to deliver PrEP. While most evidence derives from oral PrEP implementation, lessons learned on training needs, infrastructure requirements, task-shifting strategies, and health system readiness directly inform the introduction of injectable PrEP. Addressing gaps in training, guidelines, and resources, alongside strengthening policy and system support, is essential for the effective integration and scale-up of both oral and injectable PrEP formulations.
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.