ArticleAIDS and behavior2025
Understanding Opportunities for Prescribing Pre-exposure Prophylaxis at Two Academic Medical Centers in a High Priority Jurisdiction for Ending the HIV Epidemic.
Article in AIDS and behavior, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective yet underutilized tool for HIV prevention. We examined opportunities for prescribing PrEP at two large, urban, academic healthcare institutions. We analyzed electronic medical record data for 1/1/2015-12/31/2021 among patients ≥ 18 years of age, with ≥ 1 negative HIV test with indications for PrEP. Eligible encounters were six months after a sexually transmitted infection, or when injection drug use (IDU) was documented. We categorized encounter setting, including the emergency department (ED) and obstetrics and gynecology/women's health (OBGYN) department. We performed logistic mixed effects regression, reporting odds ratios and confidence intervals (OR, aOR, 95% CI). Overall, 9644 people contributed 53,031 encounters with 4653 PrEP prescriptions. The two institutions had different patient population demographics, with institution A having a higher proportion of women, patients aged 18-24, and non-Hispanic Blacks (NHB), and institution B having a higher proportion of men who have sex with men (MSM), non-Hispanic Whites (NHW), and Hispanic/Latinos. Adjusted models found lower odds of PrEP prescriptions for NHB (aOR 0.21 [0.15, 0.29]), Hispanic/Latino (aOR 0.53 [0.37, 0.76]), heterosexual women (aOR 0.10 [0.06, 0.17]), IDU (aOR 0.01 [0.001, 0.08]), and encounters at the ED or OBGYN (0.14 [0.06, 0.31]). Increased odds of PrEP prescription were seen among NHW (aOR 4.85 [3.45, 6.82]), MSM (aOR 24.87 [15.79, 39.15]), and patients at institution B (aOR 1.78 [1.25, 2.53]). Institution A contained people historically underrepresented in PrEP prescriptions, while institution B accounted for most PrEP prescriptions. Opportunities exist to improve equity in PrEP prescriptions among demographic groups and in hospital settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.