Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33319339›Full record

SynthesisThe patient2021

Eliciting Preferences for HIV Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review.

S Wilson Beckham, Norah L Crossnohere, Margaret Gross, John F P Bridges

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The patient, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

S Wilson BeckhamDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Norah L CrossnohereDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. norah.crossnohere@osumc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2811-1330
Margaret GrossCollege of Veterinary Medicine, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
John F P BridgesDepartment of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.

Funding

Preferences for PrEP in Tanzanian Women at Heightened Risk of HIV InfectionK01MH114715 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI COLE, SAM WILSON · 2017 to 2021
$732k
NIH HHS K01MH114715NIMH NIH HHS K01 MH114715
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention technologies (pre-exposure prophylaxis, microbicides, vaccines) are available or in development. Preference elicitation methods provide insight into client preferences that may be used to optimize products and services. Given increased utilization of such methods in HIV prevention, this article identifies and reviews these methods and synthesizes their application to HIV prevention technologies.

methodsIn May 2020, we systematically searched peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science for studies employing quantitative preference elicitation methods to measure preferences for HIV prevention technologies among populations of any age, sex, or location. Quality assessment used an existing checklist (PREFS) and a novel adaptation of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (PROSPERO #CRD42018087027).

resultsWe screened 5022 titles and abstracts, reviewed 318 full texts, and included 84 studies. Common methods employed were discrete-choice experiment (33%), conjoint analysis (25%), and willingness-to-participate/try/accept (21%). Studies were conducted in 25 countries and had a mean of 768 participants (range = 26-7176), two-thirds of them male. Common HIV prevention technologies included pre-exposure prophylaxis (23%), voluntary testing and counseling (19%), HIV self-testing (17%), vaccines (15%), and topical microbicides (9%). Most attributes focused on product design (side effects, frequency), service design (provider type, location), acceptability or willingness to accept/pay; results are summarized in these categories, by prevention type. Mean quality-adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score was 4.5/8 (standard deviation = 2.1) and mean PREFS scores was 3.47/5 (standard deviation = 0.81).

conclusionsThis review synthesizes extant literature on quantitative measurement of preferences for HIV prevention technologies. This can enable practitioners to improve prevention products and interventions, and ultimately reduce HIV incidence.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsPre-Exposure ProphylaxisChecklistCounselingDelivery of Health CareHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID33319339
PMCPMC7884379

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.