| Literature DB >> 34783662 |
Tyler B Wray1, Philip A Chan2, Christopher W Kahler1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Encouraging consistent use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is essential for reducing HIV incidence, particularly among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM), and especially those who engage in heavy drinking. Although practice guidelines recommend providing adherence counseling to PrEP patients, clinics and providers may not have the resources or expertise to provide it. Internet-facilitated interventions have been shown to improve HIV prevention outcomes, including medication and care adherence. Game Plan is a website we created to help users make a tangible plan for reducing their HIV risk. We designed additional components of Game Plan to address key individual level barriers to PrEP use.Entities:
Keywords: HIV; HIV prevention; eHealth; mHealth; mobile health; mobile phone; pre-exposure prophylaxis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34783662 PMCID: PMC8663613 DOI: 10.2196/31843
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Form Res ISSN: 2561-326X
Demographic characteristics of the usability study participants (N=50).
| Characteristics | Usability test (n=10) | UXa survey (n=40) | |
| Age (range 21-68 years), mean (SD) | 27.9 (3.1) | 33.6 (10.9) | |
|
| |||
|
| White | 7 (70) | 34 (85) |
|
| Black or African American | 1 (10) | 2 (5) |
|
| American Indian or Alaska native | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
|
| Asian | 2 (20) | 1 (3) |
|
| Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
|
| Multiracial | 0 (0) | 2 (5) |
|
| Chose not to respond | 0 (0) | 1.0 (3) |
| Ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino), n (%) | 1 (10) | 9 (23) | |
| Single relationship status, n (%) | 7 (70) | 31 (78) | |
| College degree, n (%) | 9 (90) | 35 (88) | |
| Low incomea, n (%) | 2 (20) | 8 (20) | |
| Unemployed, n (%) | 1 (10) | 1 (3) | |
| Gay or bisexual identity, n (%) | 10 (100) | 39 (98) | |
|
| |||
|
| Northeast | 6 (60) | 25 (63) |
|
| South | 2 (20) | 3 (8) |
|
| Midwest | 1 (10) | 6 (15) |
|
| West | 1 (10) | 6 (15) |
| AUDITb total score, mean (SD) | 12 (6.0) | 10.8 (5.7) | |
| DASTc total score, mean (SD) | 1.7 (2.5) | 1.7 (1.6) | |
|
| |||
|
| Truvada | 7 (70) | 28 (70) |
|
| Descovy | 3 (30) | 10 (25) |
|
| FTC-TDFe | 0 (0) | 2 (5) |
| Number of years on PrEP, mean (SD) | 4.0 (2.0) | 4.7 (1.3) | |
| Days taken PrEP, past 30 days, mean (SD) | 26.1 (6.0) | 28.0 (3.6) | |
aUX: user experience.
bAUDIT: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test.
cDAST: Drug Abuse Screening Test.
dPrEP: pre-exposure prophylaxis.
eFTC-TDF: emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.
Descriptive statistics for items rated by usability (n=10) and user experience study (n=40) participants (N=50).
| Characteristics | Values, mean (SD) | |
|
| ||
|
| Color scheme | 6.0 (1.2) |
|
| Font style | 6.6 (0.8) |
|
| Font size | 6.6 (0.7) |
|
| Navigation use | 6.0 (1.4) |
|
| Layout organization | 6.3 (1.0) |
|
| ||
|
| It was something I would want to use. | 3.5 (1.1) |
|
| It was interesting. | 4.1 (0.9) |
|
| It was engaging. | 4.1 (0.8) |
|
| It was boring. | 2.1 (0.9) |
|
| It took too long to use. | 2.5 (1.1) |
|
| I had too much on my mind to really think about the content. | 2.0 (1.0) |
|
| It was judgmental. | 2.3 (1.3) |
|
| It helped me reflect on what I do in my own life. | 3.9 (0.9) |
|
| The topics addressed were a good fit for me and other guys I know. | 3.8 (0.9) |
|
| It was | 2.1 (1.2) |
|
| ||
|
| It provided feedback objectively, rather than trying to persuade me. | 3.6 (1.1) |
|
| It told me what to do, rather than helping me understand what I want to do. | 2.3 (1.0) |
|
| It was understanding of my point of view. | 3.4 (1.2) |
|
| It showed me confidence in my ability to make changes. | 3.7 (0.8) |
|
| It showed interest in my values and goals in life. | 3.5 (1.0) |
|
| It tried to persuade me of the seriousness of the problem. | 3.6 (1.0) |
|
| It encouraged me to contribute ideas about how to change my behavior. | 3.4 (1.1) |
|
| It expressed disapproval of me. | 2.2 (1.2) |
|
| It was empathetic, meaning that it showed an understanding of my perspective. | 3.6 (1.0) |
|
| It showed respect for me. | 4.1 (0.9) |
|
| It was supportive of my ability to decide for myself. | 3.8 (0.8) |
|
| It was caring and friendly. | 4.0 (0.8) |
|
| It was honest and trustworthy. | 3.9 (0.9) |
aItems rated on a scale of 1 (extremely bad or difficult or disorganized) to 7 (extremely good or easy or organized).
bItems were rated on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).