Trial reportJMIR mHealth and uHealth2026
Improving Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Adherence in People at Risk for HIV: Secondary Analysis of a Digital Health Intervention to Enhance User Engagement.
Trial report in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dating Applications as HIV Prevention Ecosystems in the Era of Digital Sexual Networks.Infectious disease reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Although highly effective HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available, its usage and adherence among young men who have sex with men and young transgender women remain low, reducing its overall effectiveness. The study included a 3-arm randomized clinical trial of Prepared, Protected, emPowered (P3), a comprehensive PrEP adherence digital health intervention, compared to an enhanced version, P3+, which incorporates in-app adherence coaching. Objective: This study aims to analyze data from study participants in the P3/P3+ intervention arms to understand how different levels of user engagement with the app's features were associated with adherence to PrEP as well as the costs of each intervention and their relative cost-effectiveness. Methods: Descriptive statistics for study variables at baseline were calculated. To examine the differences in intervention engagement and acceptability by arm, independent samples 2-tailed t tests for continuous variables and a chi-square analysis for categorical variables were conducted. To examine the effect of arm and engagement categories on PrEP adherence at 3 months, three logistic regression analyses were conducted: (1) the effect of arm on PrEP adherence, (2) the effect of predefined engagement categories (high vs moderate and low) on PrEP adherence, and (3) the interaction effect of arm and predefined engagement categories on PrEP adherence, along with the main effects of arm and predefined engagement categories. The study team calculated the average cost per participant and the incremental cost-effectiveness for PrEP adherence and engagement measures. Results: A total of 163 participants were randomized to the P3 intervention (82 to the P3 arm and 81 to the P3+ arm). Participants in the P3+ arm earned higher incentives (US $90.6 vs $75.4; P=.04), had more app log-ins (96.6 vs 76.1; P=.01), used the app on more days (63.3 d vs 53.2 d; P=.04), and spent more time in the intervention (378.8 min vs 186.66 min; P<.001) compared to those in the P3 arm. There was no significant association between intervention arm and PrEP adherence at 3 months (P=.99). Engagement category (high vs moderate or low) was significantly associated with PrEP adherence at 3 months (P=.003). The overall average total monthly cost of P3 was US $1118 (SD $305.1). Average total monthly cost per P3 participant was $280 (SD $118.5), with an additional cost for P3+ of $72. Conclusions: This study highlights the critical role of user engagement in enhancing PrEP adherence among young individuals at high risk for HIV. While the P3+ intervention led to increased engagement, this did not translate into significantly better adherence compared to the standard P3 arm. This, coupled with the increased cost and complexity of P3+ delivery, indicates that further studies are necessary to determine whether this intensified intervention is the appropriate fit.
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.