RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Stakeholder perspectives on interventions to improve HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis uptake and continuation in Lesotho: A participant-ranked preferences study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.12.05.22283125
DO 10.1101/2022.12.05.22283125
A1 Geldsetzer, Pascal
A1 Chebet, Joy J.
A1 Chase, Rachel P.
A1 Tarumbiswa, Tapiwa
A1 Maponga, Chivimbiso
A1 Mandara, Esther
A1 Bärnighausen, Till
A1 McMahon, Shannon A.
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/06/2022.12.05.22283125.abstract
AB Background Low uptake and high discontinuation rates remain major obstacles to realizing the potential of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) in changing the trajectory of the HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Evidence on how PrEP could be successfully delivered has thus far mainly focused on key target groups rather than the general adult population. Set in the HIV-hyperendemic country of Lesotho, which is currently rolling out PrEP for the general adult population, this study aimed to determine stakeholders’ views on which are the most important barriers and most promising interventions to achieving high PrEP uptake and continuation.Methods and findings We conducted a card sorting and ranking exercise with 155 local stakeholders to identify key barriers and interventions. Stakeholders were a purposive sample of PrEP policy makers and implementing partners (n=7), healthcare providers (n=51), and end-users (n=97). End-users included adults who were currently using PrEP (n=55), formerly using PrEP (n=36), and were offered PrEP by a healthcare provider but declined (n=6). Participants sorted pre-selected interventions and barriers to PrEP coverage into three piles – most, somewhat, and least important. After sorting, participants ranked interventions and barriers in the “most important” piles in ascending order of significance. Ranked preferences were analyzed as voting data to identify the smallest set of candidates for which each candidate in the set would win a two-candidate election against any candidate outside the set. Participants viewed a lack of PrEP awareness as the most important barrier to PrEP uptake for women, and a fear of HIV testing for men. Community-based HIV testing was ranked as the most promising intervention to improve PrEP uptake for both men and women. Perceived or experienced stigma was seen as an important barrier for PrEP continuation for both men and women, with an additional important barrier for men being daily activities that compete with the time or mental bandwidth needed to take a daily pill. Adherence counseling and multi-month PrEP prescriptions were seen as the most promising interventions to improve PrEP continuation.Conclusions Our findings suggest community-based activities that generate PrEP demand (community-based HIV testing and mass media campaigns), reinforced with facility-based follow-up (counseling and multi-month prescription) could be promising interventions to improve PrEP uptake and continuation in PrEP programs that are aimed at the general adult population. The views of the wide range of stakeholders that participated in this study could provide a useful starting point for design and implementation choices of PrEP delivery programs for the general adult population.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was supported by the Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation University Professorship to TB (no grant number https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/en/). PG is a Chan Zuckerberg Biohub investigator (no grant number https://www.czbiohub.org). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval for this study was received from the research and ethics committee of the Lesotho Ministry of Health (ID03-2019), and the Heidelberg University ethical review board (S-865/2018).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.Not ApplicableA deidentified version of our dataset will be made available in a publicly accessible data repository upon acceptance of the manuscript for publication.