Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Integration Into Family Planning Services at Title X Clinics in the Southeastern United States: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Hybrid Type I Effectiveness Implementation Study (Phase 2 ATN 155)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescent and young adult women (AYAW), particularly racial and ethnic minorities, in the Southern United States are disproportionately affected by HIV. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective, scalable, individual-controlled HIV prevention strategy that is grossly underutilized among women of all ages and requires innovative delivery approaches to optimize its benefit. Anchoring PrEP delivery to family planning (FP) services that AYAW already trust, access routinely, and deem useful for their sexual health may offer an ideal opportunity to reach women at risk for HIV and to enhance their PrEP uptake and adherence. However, PrEP has not been widely integrated into FP services, including Title X-funded FP clinics that provide safety net sources of care for AYAW. To overcome potential implementation challenges for AYAW, Title X clinics in the Southern United States are uniquely positioned to be focal sites for conceptually informed and thoroughly evaluated PrEP implementation science studies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is two-fold: to evaluate multilevel factors associated with the level of PrEP adoption and implementation (eg, PrEP screening, counseling, and prescription) within and across 3 FP clinics and to evaluate PrEP uptake, persistence, and adherence among female patients in these clinics over a 6-month follow-up period. METHODS: Phase 2 of Planning4PrEP (Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions 155) is a mixed methods hybrid type 1 effectiveness implementation study to be conducted in three clinics in Metro Atlanta, Georgia, United States. Guided by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment framework, this study will prepare clinics for PrEP integration via clinic-wide trainings and technical assistance and will develop clinic-specific PrEP implementation plans. We will monitor and evaluate PrEP implementation as well as female patient PrEP uptake, persistence, and adherence over a 6-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Phase 2 of Planning4PrEP research activities began in February 2018 and are ongoing. Qualitative data analysis is scheduled to begin in Fall 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This study seeks to evaluate factors associated with the level of PrEP adoption and implementation (eg, PrEP screening, counseling, and prescription) within and across 3 FP clinics following training and implementation planning and to evaluate PrEP uptake, persistence, and adherence among female patients over a 6-month follow-up period. This will guide future strategies to support PrEP integration in Title X-funded clinics across the Southern United States. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04097834; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04097834. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/18784.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".