Cargando…

Eliciting Preferences for HIV Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Many human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention technologies (pre-exposure prophylaxis, microbicides, vaccines) are available or in development. Preference elicitation methods provide insight into client preferences that may be used to optimize products and services. Given increased u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Beckham, S. Wilson, Crossnohere, Norah L., Gross, Margaret, Bridges, John F. P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7884379/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33319339
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00486-9
_version_ 1783651402566860800
author Beckham, S. Wilson
Crossnohere, Norah L.
Gross, Margaret
Bridges, John F. P.
author_facet Beckham, S. Wilson
Crossnohere, Norah L.
Gross, Margaret
Bridges, John F. P.
author_sort Beckham, S. Wilson
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Many human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention technologies (pre-exposure prophylaxis, microbicides, vaccines) are available or in development. Preference elicitation methods provide insight into client preferences that may be used to optimize products and services. Given increased utilization of such methods in HIV prevention, this article identifies and reviews these methods and synthesizes their application to HIV prevention technologies. METHODS: In May 2020, we systematically searched peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science for studies employing quantitative preference elicitation methods to measure preferences for HIV prevention technologies among populations of any age, sex, or location. Quality assessment used an existing checklist (PREFS) and a novel adaptation of the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (PROSPERO #CRD42018087027). RESULTS: We screened 5022 titles and abstracts, reviewed 318 full texts, and included 84 studies. Common methods employed were discrete-choice experiment (33%), conjoint analysis (25%), and willingness-to-participate/try/accept (21%). Studies were conducted in 25 countries and had a mean of 768 participants (range = 26–7176), two-thirds of them male. Common HIV prevention technologies included pre-exposure prophylaxis (23%), voluntary testing and counseling (19%), HIV self-testing (17%), vaccines (15%), and topical microbicides (9%). Most attributes focused on product design (side effects, frequency), service design (provider type, location), acceptability or willingness to accept/pay; results are summarized in these categories, by prevention type. Mean quality-adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale score was 4.5/8 (standard deviation = 2.1) and mean PREFS scores was 3.47/5 (standard deviation = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: This review synthesizes extant literature on quantitative measurement of preferences for HIV prevention technologies. This can enable practitioners to improve prevention products and interventions, and ultimately reduce HIV incidence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7884379
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78843792021-02-25 Eliciting Preferences for HIV Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review Beckham, S. Wilson Crossnohere, Norah L. Gross, Margaret Bridges, John F. P. Patient Systematic Review BACKGROUND: Many human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention technologies (pre-exposure prophylaxis, microbicides, vaccines) are available or in development. Preference elicitation methods provide insight into client preferences that may be used to optimize products and services. Given increased utilization of such methods in HIV prevention, this article identifies and reviews these methods and synthesizes their application to HIV prevention technologies. METHODS: In May 2020, we systematically searched peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science for studies employing quantitative preference elicitation methods to measure preferences for HIV prevention technologies among populations of any age, sex, or location. Quality assessment used an existing checklist (PREFS) and a novel adaptation of the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (PROSPERO #CRD42018087027). RESULTS: We screened 5022 titles and abstracts, reviewed 318 full texts, and included 84 studies. Common methods employed were discrete-choice experiment (33%), conjoint analysis (25%), and willingness-to-participate/try/accept (21%). Studies were conducted in 25 countries and had a mean of 768 participants (range = 26–7176), two-thirds of them male. Common HIV prevention technologies included pre-exposure prophylaxis (23%), voluntary testing and counseling (19%), HIV self-testing (17%), vaccines (15%), and topical microbicides (9%). Most attributes focused on product design (side effects, frequency), service design (provider type, location), acceptability or willingness to accept/pay; results are summarized in these categories, by prevention type. Mean quality-adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale score was 4.5/8 (standard deviation = 2.1) and mean PREFS scores was 3.47/5 (standard deviation = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: This review synthesizes extant literature on quantitative measurement of preferences for HIV prevention technologies. This can enable practitioners to improve prevention products and interventions, and ultimately reduce HIV incidence. Springer International Publishing 2020-12-15 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7884379/ /pubmed/33319339 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00486-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Beckham, S. Wilson
Crossnohere, Norah L.
Gross, Margaret
Bridges, John F. P.
Eliciting Preferences for HIV Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review
title Eliciting Preferences for HIV Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review
title_full Eliciting Preferences for HIV Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Eliciting Preferences for HIV Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Eliciting Preferences for HIV Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review
title_short Eliciting Preferences for HIV Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review
title_sort eliciting preferences for hiv prevention technologies: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7884379/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33319339
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40271-020-00486-9
work_keys_str_mv AT beckhamswilson elicitingpreferencesforhivpreventiontechnologiesasystematicreview
AT crossnoherenorahl elicitingpreferencesforhivpreventiontechnologiesasystematicreview
AT grossmargaret elicitingpreferencesforhivpreventiontechnologiesasystematicreview
AT bridgesjohnfp elicitingpreferencesforhivpreventiontechnologiesasystematicreview