| Literature DB >> 34895357 |
Kenneth K Mugwanya1, Daniel Matemo2, Caitlin W Scoville3, Kristin M Beima-Sofie3, Allison Meisner3,4, Dickens Onyango5, Mary Mugambi6, Erika Feutz3, Cole Grabow3, Ruanne Barnabas7, Bryan Weiner3, Jared M Baeten8,9, John Kinuthia10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescent girls and young women account for a disproportionate fraction of new HIV infections in Africa and are a priority population for HIV prevention, including provision of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Anchoring PrEP delivery to care settings like family planning (FP) services that women already access routinely may offer an efficient platform to reach HIV at-risk women. However, context-specific implementation science evaluation is needed.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34895357 PMCID: PMC8665600 DOI: 10.1186/s43058-021-00228-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Implement Sci Commun ISSN: 2662-2211
Fig. 1Schematic of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial design.
Data sources
| Data source | Description | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Data abstraction | ▪ Data abstracted from clinical delivery tools | ▪ Define profile of screened and initiated on PrEP and whether persons are appropriately put on PrEP |
| Technical assistance reports and rapid cycle debriefs. | ▪ Rapid cycle debriefs and TA reports prepared at baseline and 6-monthly | ▪ Document detailed knowledge of process of integration of PrEP delivery and track changes in PrEP implementation processes ▪ Rapid cycle analysis to convey to facilities for quality improvement |
| Qualitative interviews: women, healthcare providers, and policy key informants | ▪ Purposefully sampled client and key informants involved in the delivery | ▪ Characterize process of adoption and integration of PrEP delivery and track changes in PrEP implementation processes, including barriers and facilities |
| Quantitative surveys | ▪ Healthcare providers ▪ Random cross-sectional exit surveys with women at the end of clinic visit | ▪ Assess acceptability, clinics’ readiness to implement, clinic inner settings ▪ HIV and STI risk perception, characteristics of women accessing through FP clinics, stigma, and satisfaction with services offered. |
| Activity-based costing, and time and motions studies | ▪ Primary data collection | ▪ Activity-based costing, and time and motions studies |
| Clinic and client flow mapping | ▪ Primary data collection | ▪ Establish baseline flow, track how new services are incorporated in the flow and bottlenecks, and document patient wait-time |
| Standardized patient actors | ▪ Standardized clients make unannounced visit to subset of clinics and complete a checklist | ▪ Assess implementation fidelity by documenting type of services offered, quality of services received, and provider attitudes |
| Random blood draw | ▪ Dried blood spots collected at ~10% visits on persons using PrEP | ▪ Objective assessment of PrEP adherence (tenofovir levels) |
| Nested observational cohort | ▪ Women identified as eligible for PrEP, both who initiate and those who decline | ▪ Detailed individual-level outcomes: HIV risk behaviors, HIV risk perception, HIV incidence, HIV prevention decision making, contraception use, stigma, STI burden, PrEP retention, and reasons for discontinuation |
Application of the RE-AIM framework to evaluate integration of PrEP delivery in into public health FP clinics
| Domain | Measurement level | Project specific outcome measures |
|---|---|---|
| Reach | Individual | ▪ Proportion of women screened for HIV risk and PrEP ▪ Number and proportion of at-risk persons initiated on PrEP |
| Clinic | ▪ Characteristics of implementing clinics | |
| Effectiveness | Individual | ▪ Incident HIV infection among PrEP users ▪ Detectable tenofovir levels in randomly collected DBS from PrEP users ▪ Client opportunity costs (e.g., clinic wait time) |
| Program | ▪ Cost and budget impact from the pragmatic perspective | |
| Adoption | Individual | ▪ PrEP continuation |
| Clinic | ▪ Number and % of clinics initially approached implementing PrEP in FP clinics ▪ Number and % of trained clinical FP staff who delivered PrEP at least once | |
| Implementation | Provider | ▪ Number and % of trained appropriately initiated on PrEP ▪ Consistency of implementation across staff (assessed by patient actors) ▪ Opportunity costs (e.g., Workload, impact on other services) |
| Clinic | ▪ Number of clinics regularly completing MOH PrEP M & E tools and report PrEP ▪ Number and proportion of clinics in which screening for HIV risk and PrEP regularly documented. ▪ Proportion of women testing is documented | |
| Maintenance | Individual | ▪ 3- and 6-month PrEP continuation rates |
| Clinic | ▪ Number of FP clinics implementing PrEP FP 6 months, 12 months after scale back of technical assistance ▪ Number of clinics with PrEP listed in the service charter |