ArticlePloS one2026
"Picking the right person … can make or break the whole deal": Development of a layperson injector selection tool for administration of home-based long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapies.
Article in PloS one, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinic-based administration of long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapy (LAI-ART) is resource-intensive and may exacerbate disparities in access to care. Home-based administration by trained layperson injectors, or treatment buddies (TBYs), could expand access to LAI-ART; however, maintaining high-quality clinical care requires selecting suitable TBYs for its implementation. This paper describes the development of the TBY Selection Tool to support people with HIV (PWH) in identifying appropriate TBYs.
methodsThe tool development process consisted of 5 phases. In Phase 1, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 clinicians, 16 PWH, and 15 candidate TBYs. Transcripts were thematically coded to identify domains influencing TBY suitability. In Phase 2, draft items were developed and refined into a structured survey. In Phase 3, 7 PWH completed the tool during a 2-month pilot. In Phase 4, a Community Advisory Panel (CAP) (n = 10) reviewed items for clarity, relevance, and comprehensiveness. In Phase 5, feedback was incorporated to finalize the tool.
resultsClinicians emphasized the reliability of TBYs, the confidentiality of home-based injections, and the importance of adhering to injection schedules. PWH prioritized trust in the TBYs, TBY availability, and comfort with bodily intimacy. TBYs highlighted emotional steadiness, willingness to learn, and responsibility for continuity of care. These domains were operationalized into a survey assessing relationship history, reliability, confidentiality, availability, proximity, and comfort with injections. Pilot testing showed 100% completion without difficulties. CAP feedback led to refined wording, expanded response options, and clearer phrasing, which were used to finalize a 12-item survey.
conclusionsThe TBY Selection Tool provides a structured framework to support PWH in identifying appropriate TBYs for home-based LAI-ART. By integrating clinical, individual, and community perspectives, the tool addresses factors important for the safe, acceptable, and feasible implementation of home-based LAI-ART. Psychometric assessment, scoring, and further validation in larger, more diverse populations is needed.
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.