Centering autonomy and choice to support oral PrEP utilization among people who inject drugs: qualitative lessons from HPTN 094 INTEGRA
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Oral Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is effective in preventing HIV transmission. However, despite high rates of HIV risk behaviors among people who inject drugs (PWID), this population remains underserved by current HIV prevention efforts in the United States. To address this challenge, we conducted an in-depth exploration of perspectives on using oral PrEP among PWID engaged in the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 094 INTEGRA Study. METHODS: Guided by the Practical, Robust, Implementation, and Sustainability Model (PRISM), our qualitative study drew on semi-structured interviews conducted as part of the embedded implementation science evaluation of HPTN 094 INTEGRA. Seventy-seven PWID participants from five sites across New York City, Houston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Washington DC were interviewed to assess intervention delivery, care access, and engagement sustainability. Audio files were transcribed verbatim and analyzed via an inductive and deductive thematic approach. RESULTS: Most participants (n = 46, 59.7%) discussed oral PrEP during their interview, though not directly prompted. Participants discussing PrEP had a mean age of 41.6 years and were predominantly white (54.3%) and cisgender men (60.9%). Among these, 15 participants described using PrEP. All participants had facilitated access to oral PrEP. Yet, the choice to use PrEP was influenced by personal risk perceptions, (mis)information about PrEP, and external factors (i.e. housing, financial security), which, for some, limited the autonomy to use PrEP. Two key themes emerged among participants using PrEP: ease of access and perceptions of high HIV risk. Those not using PrEP described two themes: low risk perception and prioritizing more urgent needs. Among participants not using PrEP a subgroup commonly described ambivalent interest, PrEP knowledge gaps, and PrEP readiness (i.e., contemplation). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative findings highlight that facilitated PrEP access was insufficient to motivate use for many participants. Rather, PrEP decision-making process (i.e., choice) was linked to risk perception and individuals' capability to leverage PrEP as a resource based on their circumstances (i.e., autonomy). Participants' descriptions of the centrality of choice and autonomy for PrEP use underscore that ease of access is a necessary pre-condition, but person-centered interventions should also address housing, financial stability, and urgent medical conditions to promote PrEP utilization among PWID. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04804027.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle