4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Preferences for pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV: A systematic review of discrete choice experiments

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          We aimed to systematically review the health preference literature using discrete choice experiments (DCEs), an attribute-based stated preference method, to investigate patient preferences for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP).

          Methods

          A search in PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Embase was conducted on July 1, 2021, and updated on November 3, 2021. We used two concepts to create our search strategy: (1) discrete choice experiments/conjoint analysis/best-worst scaling, and (2) HIV PrEP.The study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021267026).

          Findings

          In total, 1060 studies were identified, and 18 were included in the analysis. Various attributes were examined, including dosing regimen, type of PrEP products, side effects, other side benefits, cost, effectiveness, dispensing venue, and additional support services. Dosing frequency, cost, the effectiveness of PrEP, dispensing venue, and side effects were the most common attributes examined in DCEs. Despite significant heterogeneity in preferences across subpopulations, overall, the most important attributes were cost (28%, 5/18), effectiveness (28%, 5/18) followed by dosing frequency (17%, 3/18).

          Interpretation

          Notably, in studies where all of these three attributes were examined, some individuals would trade effectiveness for cost or vice versa. Ensuring PrEP is low cost or free, widely disseminating information of its effectiveness and advancements in reducing dosing frequency could accelerate the uptake of PrEP for those who would benefit from PrEP the most.

          Funding

          None.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force.

              The application of conjoint analysis (including discrete-choice experiments and other multiattribute stated-preference methods) in health has increased rapidly over the past decade. A wider acceptance of these methods is limited by an absence of consensus-based methodological standards. The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force was established to identify good research practices for conjoint-analysis applications in health. The task force met regularly to identify the important steps in a conjoint analysis, to discuss good research practices for conjoint analysis, and to develop and refine the key criteria for identifying good research practices. ISPOR members contributed to this process through an extensive consultation process. A final consensus meeting was held to revise the article using these comments, and those of a number of international reviewers. Task force findings are presented as a 10-item checklist covering: 1) research question; 2) attributes and levels; 3) construction of tasks; 4) experimental design; 5) preference elicitation; 6) instrument design; 7) data-collection plan; 8) statistical analyses; 9) results and conclusions; and 10) study presentation. A primary question relating to each of the 10 items is posed, and three sub-questions examine finer issues within items. Although the checklist should not be interpreted as endorsing any specific methodological approach to conjoint analysis, it can facilitate future training activities and discussions of good research practices for the application of conjoint-analysis methods in health care studies. Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                eClinicalMedicine
                EClinicalMedicine
                eClinicalMedicine
                Elsevier
                2589-5370
                09 July 2022
                September 2022
                09 July 2022
                : 51
                : 101507
                Affiliations
                [a ]The Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
                [b ]Faculty of Medicine, Udayana University, Bali Indonesia
                [c ]China-Australia Joint Research Center for Infectious Diseases, School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi'an, China
                [d ]Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia
                [e ]Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
                [f ]UNAIDS Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand
                [g ]Global HIV, Hepatitis and STIs Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
                [h ]Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
                [i ]Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, United States
                [j ]Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450001, Henan, China
                [k ]Department of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street London, London, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: 580 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia. Jason.Ong@ 123456monash.edu
                [** ]Corresponding author at: China-Australia Joint Research Center for Infectious Diseases, School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi'an, Shaanxi, 710061, China. lei.zhang1@ 123456xjtu.edu.cn
                [1]

                Equal first co-authors.

                [2]

                Equal senior author.

                Article
                S2589-5370(22)00237-1 101507
                10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101507
                9284393
                35844771
                d31a5665-59e9-438b-b950-bda254b5cbce
                © 2022 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 13 February 2022
                : 20 May 2022
                : 23 May 2022
                Categories
                Review

                systematic review,discrete choice experiment,preferences,hiv,pre-exposure prophylaxis

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content78

                Cited by8

                Most referenced authors1,031