Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42479395›Full record

ArticleAIDS and behavior2026

Instruments for Assessing Population Knowledge of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) and/or Post-exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) for HIV: A Scoping Review.

Renata Braga Cordeiro, Vitor Santos de Sá Galina, Mayra Cardozo Mendes, Laura Candeias Dos Santos, Dyego Carlos Souza Anacleto de Araujo, Kérilin Stancine Santos Rocha

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AIDS and behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Renata Braga CordeiroGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Services and Policies, Laboratory for Innovation in Health Care (Linc), Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-7581-6972
Vitor Santos de Sá GalinaGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Laboratory for Innovation in Health Care (Linc), Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-7031-8333
Mayra Cardozo MendesUniversity Hospital Cassiano Antonio Moraes (HUCAM/EBSERH), Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-4358-6603
Laura Candeias Dos SantosLaboratory for Innovation in Health Care (Linc), Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-7974-7674
Dyego Carlos Souza Anacleto de AraujoGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences, Laboratory for Innovation in Health Care (Linc), Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6631-465X
Kérilin Stancine Santos RochaGraduate Program in Pharmaceutical Services and Policies, Laboratory for Innovation in Health Care (Linc), Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, Brazil. kerilin.rocha@ufes.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2313-2140

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) are central strategies for HIV prevention; however, a comprehensive understanding of how knowledge about these strategies is measured across different contexts remains limited. This scoping review aimed to map the instruments used to assess knowledge of PrEP and/or PEP. The study followed the recommendations of the JBI Reviewer's Manual, with a systematic search conducted on August 27, 2024, in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Virtual Health Library, and grey literature. Original studies assessing knowledge of PrEP and/or PEP were included. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection through title and abstract screening, followed by full-text assessment. Data extraction was performed by a single researcher, and the findings were presented descriptively. A total of 1,922 records were retrieved, of which 49 studies were included. Cross-sectional studies predominated (n = 45; 91.8%), as did publications from 2020 to 2024 (n = 25; 51.0%). The instruments focused mainly on PEP (n = 27; 55.1%), followed by PrEP (n = 20; 40.8%), and were administered primarily to healthcare professionals or healthcare students (n = 35; 71.4%). The instruments varied in terms of the number of items, response formats, and scoring criteria, and showed limited reporting of their development and psychometric properties. The findings highlight substantial variability in the characteristics of instruments used to assess population knowledge of PrEP and/or PEP. Important gaps were identified in the reporting of instrument development and validation processes, reinforcing the need for methodologically robust instruments to assess population knowledge of PrEP and PEP.

Indexed as

HIVKnowledgePost-exposure prophylaxisPre-exposure prophylaxisScoping reviewSurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.