Implementation strategies for integrating pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention and family planning services for adolescent girls and young women in Kenya: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION: Across sub-Saharan Africa, ministries of health have proposed integrating pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention into family planning (FP) services to reach adolescent girls and young women (AGYW); however, evidence on effective implementation strategies is still limited. We conducted a qualitative study of integrated PrEP-FP service implementation at two FP clinics in Kisumu, Kenya. METHODS: From June 2017 to May 2020, the Prevention Options for Women Evaluation Research (POWER) study enrolled 1000 sexually active, HIV-negative AGYW age 16 to 25. Actions taken to implement PrEP were captured prospectively in 214 monitoring and evaluation documents and 15 interviews with PrEP implementers. We analysed data using conventional and directed content analysis, with the latter informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation. RESULTS: POWER deployed a variety of implementation strategies to train and educate stakeholders (e.g., having new providers shadow PrEP providers); develop stakeholder interrelationships (e.g., organizing support teams with protected time to reflect on implementation progress and make refinements); provide technical assistance; and change physical infrastructure and workflow. Although these strategies reportedly influenced contextual factors across four of the five CFIR domains, they primarily interacted with contextual factors relevant to inner setting, especially implementation climate and readiness for implementation. Overall, implementing PrEP proved easier and less labor-intensive at a private, youth-friendly clinic than a public FP clinic, largely because the baseline structural characteristics (e.g., space, workflow) and organizational mission of the former were more conducive to offering AGYW-centered care. Nevertheless, adoption of PrEP delivery among non-study staff at both sites was low, likely due to the widespread perception that PrEP was not within their scope of work. CONCLUSIONS: Some FP clinics may be “lower-hanging fruit” than others for PrEP implementation. Approaching PrEP implementation as a behavioral intervention for FP providers may help ensure that providers have the requisite capability, opportunity, and motivation to adopt the clinical innovation. In particular, PrEP implementers should assess the need for implementation strategies that support providers’ clinical decision-making, establish worker expectations and accountability, and address workload constraints. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Number: NCT03490058. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07742-8.