Janan J Dietrich1,2, Millicent Atujuna3, Gugulethu Tshabalala4, Stefanie Hornschuh4, Mamakiri Mulaudzi4, Michelle Koh5, Nadia Ahmed3,6, Richard Muhumuza7,8, Andrew S Ssemata7,8, Kennedy Otwombe4, Linda-Gail Bekker3, Janet Seeley7,8, Neil A Martinson4, Fern Terris-Prestholt8, Julie Fox9. 1. Perinatal HIV Research Unit (PHRU), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. dietrichj@phru.co.za. 2. Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Bellville, South Africa. dietrichj@phru.co.za. 3. Desmond Tutu HIV Centre, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 4. Perinatal HIV Research Unit (PHRU), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 5. Harvard Global Health Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. 6. Mortimer Market Centre, Central North West London NHS Trust, Off Caper Street, London, WC1E 6 JB, UK. 7. Medical Research Council/Uganda Virus Research Institute , Entebbe, Uganda. 8. Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 9. King's College London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The uptake and adherence of daily oral PrEP has been poor in high-risk populations in South Africa including young people. We used qualitative research methods to explore user preferences for daily and on-demand oral PrEP use among young South Africans, and to inform the identification of critical attributes and attribute-levels for quantitative analysis of user preferences, i.e. a discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS: Data were collected between September and November 2018 from eight group discussions and 20 in-depth interviews with young people 13 to 24 years in Cape Town and Johannesburg. Using a convenience sampling strategy, participants were stratified by sex and age. Interviewers used a semi-structured interview guide to discuss several attributes (dosing regimen, location, costs, side effects, and protection period) for PrEP access and use. Group discussions and in-depth interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated to English. We used framework analysis to explore context-specific attributes and attribute-levels for delivering oral PrEP in South Africa. The adolescent community advisory board, expert and study team opinions were consulted for the final DCE attributes and levels. RESULTS: We enrolled 74 participants who were 51% (n = 38/74) male, had a median age of 18.5 [Interquartile range = 16-21.25] years, 91% (n = 67/74) identified as heterosexual and 49% (n = 36/74) had not completed 12th grade education. Using the qualitative data, we identified five candidate attributes including (1) dosing regimen, (2) location to get PrEP, (3) cost, (4) route of administration and (5) frequency. After discussions with experts and the study team, we revised the DCE to include the following five attributes and levels: dosing regime: daily, and on-demand PrEP; location: private pharmacy, public clinic, mobile clinic, ATM); cost: free-of-charge, R50 (~2GBP), R265 (~12GBP); side effects: nausea, headache, rash; and duration of protection: fulltime protection versus when PrEP is used). CONCLUSIONS: There is limited literature on qualitative research methods describing the step-by-step process of developing a DCE for PrEP in adolescents, especially in resource-constrained countries. We provide the process followed for the DCE technique to understand user preferences for daily and on-demand oral PrEP among young people in South Africa.
BACKGROUND: The uptake and adherence of daily oral PrEP has been poor in high-risk populations in South Africa including young people. We used qualitative research methods to explore user preferences for daily and on-demand oral PrEP use among young South Africans, and to inform the identification of critical attributes and attribute-levels for quantitative analysis of user preferences, i.e. a discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS: Data were collected between September and November 2018 from eight group discussions and 20 in-depth interviews with young people 13 to 24 years in Cape Town and Johannesburg. Using a convenience sampling strategy, participants were stratified by sex and age. Interviewers used a semi-structured interview guide to discuss several attributes (dosing regimen, location, costs, side effects, and protection period) for PrEP access and use. Group discussions and in-depth interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and translated to English. We used framework analysis to explore context-specific attributes and attribute-levels for delivering oral PrEP in South Africa. The adolescent community advisory board, expert and study team opinions were consulted for the final DCE attributes and levels. RESULTS: We enrolled 74 participants who were 51% (n = 38/74) male, had a median age of 18.5 [Interquartile range = 16-21.25] years, 91% (n = 67/74) identified as heterosexual and 49% (n = 36/74) had not completed 12th grade education. Using the qualitative data, we identified five candidate attributes including (1) dosing regimen, (2) location to get PrEP, (3) cost, (4) route of administration and (5) frequency. After discussions with experts and the study team, we revised the DCE to include the following five attributes and levels: dosing regime: daily, and on-demand PrEP; location: private pharmacy, public clinic, mobile clinic, ATM); cost: free-of-charge, R50 (~2GBP), R265 (~12GBP); side effects: nausea, headache, rash; and duration of protection: fulltime protection versus when PrEP is used). CONCLUSIONS: There is limited literature on qualitative research methods describing the step-by-step process of developing a DCE for PrEP in adolescents, especially in resource-constrained countries. We provide the process followed for the DCE technique to understand user preferences for daily and on-demand oral PrEP among young people in South Africa.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adolescents; Conjoint analysis; Discrete choice experiment (DCE); HIV; Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP); Preferences; South Africa; Young people
Authors: Jean-Michel Molina; Catherine Capitant; Bruno Spire; Gilles Pialoux; Laurent Cotte; Isabelle Charreau; Cecile Tremblay; Jean-Marie Le Gall; Eric Cua; Armelle Pasquet; François Raffi; Claire Pintado; Christian Chidiac; Julie Chas; Pierre Charbonneau; Constance Delaugerre; Marie Suzan-Monti; Benedicte Loze; Julien Fonsart; Gilles Peytavin; Antoine Cheret; Julie Timsit; Gabriel Girard; Nicolas Lorente; Marie Préau; James F Rooney; Mark A Wainberg; David Thompson; Willy Rozenbaum; Veronique Doré; Lucie Marchand; Marie-Christine Simon; Nicolas Etien; Jean-Pierre Aboulker; Laurence Meyer; Jean-François Delfraissy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michael C Thigpen; Poloko M Kebaabetswe; Lynn A Paxton; Dawn K Smith; Charles E Rose; Tebogo M Segolodi; Faith L Henderson; Sonal R Pathak; Fatma A Soud; Kata L Chillag; Rodreck Mutanhaurwa; Lovemore Ian Chirwa; Michael Kasonde; Daniel Abebe; Evans Buliva; Roman J Gvetadze; Sandra Johnson; Thom Sukalac; Vasavi T Thomas; Clyde Hart; Jeffrey A Johnson; C Kevin Malotte; Craig W Hendrix; John T Brooks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jean Adams; Belinda Bateman; Frauke Becker; Tricia Cresswell; Darren Flynn; Rebekah McNaughton; Yemi Oluboyede; Shannon Robalino; Laura Ternent; Benjamin Gardner Sood; Susan Michie; Janet Shucksmith; Falko F Sniehotta; Sarah Wigham Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Fern Terris-Prestholt; Kara Hanson; Catherine MacPhail; Peter Vickerman; Helen Rees; Charlotte Watts Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sheena McCormack; David T Dunn; Monica Desai; David I Dolling; Mitzy Gafos; Richard Gilson; Ann K Sullivan; Amanda Clarke; Iain Reeves; Gabriel Schembri; Nicola Mackie; Christine Bowman; Charles J Lacey; Vanessa Apea; Michael Brady; Julie Fox; Stephen Taylor; Simone Antonucci; Saye H Khoo; James Rooney; Anthony Nardone; Martin Fisher; Alan McOwan; Andrew N Phillips; Anne M Johnson; Brian Gazzard; Owen N Gill Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Anthony Idowu Ajayi; Elmon Mudefi; Mohammed Sanusi Yusuf; Oladele Vincent Adeniyi; Ntombana Rala; Daniel Ter Goon Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: S Nash; J Dietrich; A S Ssemata; C Herrera; K O'Hagan; L Else; F Chiodi; C Kelly; R Shattock; M Chirenje; L Lebina; S Khoo; L-G Bekker; H A Weiss; C Gray; L Stranix-Chibanda; P Kaleebu; J Seeley; N Martinson; J Fox Journal: Trials Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Dana Alkhoury; Jared Atchison; Antonio J Trujillo; Kimberly Oslin; Katherine P Frey; Robert V O'Toole; Renan C Castillo; Nathan N O'Hara Journal: Health Econ Rev Date: 2021-04-26
Authors: Maxime Inghels; Hae-Young Kim; Frank Tanser; Anita Hettema; Shannon A McMahon; Catherine E Oldenburg; Sindy Matse; Stefan Kohler; Pascal Geldsetzer; Till Bärnighausen Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2022-04-16