Conjoint Analysis of User Acceptability of Sustained Long-Acting Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-acting delivery modalities of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), such as subdermal implants, are in development. To facilitate end-user uptake and sustained use, it is critical to understand potential consumers' and physician prescribers' preferences about, interest in, and relative importance of different implant features. The ordered identification of these key attributes allows implant developers to incorporate this feedback into product design, which theoretically improves acceptability, feasibility, and user experience with the device. In this study, n = 75 PrEP-prescribing physicians and n = 143 men having sex with men (MSM) at risk for HIV completed web-based surveys that directly compared the importance of eight to nine different implant features, respectively. Conjoint analysis determined the importance of these features, relative to each other. Implants presented in the study were well received, with a majority of physicians and MSM indicating that they were likely to recommend or use them. The implant was perceived as unique, reliable, and convenient, as well as able to deliver better compliance. The attributes most critical to the adoption of the implant among physicians and MSM were (1) the chance of becoming infected with HIV while on implant treatment, (2) the length of protection and size of the implant, and (3) the side effect advantages over current PrEP oral pill treatment. Some concerns about the implant included side effects and the product's safety (among MSM) and the cost or insurance coverage level for the implant (both physicians and MSM). There was also some resistance to the implantation procedure itself.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".