Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2024 Oct 24;24(1):1281.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11521-y.

Acceptability of six-monthly PrEP dispensing supported with interim HIV self-testing to simplify PrEP delivery in Kenya: findings from qualitative research

Nicholas Thuo  1 , Ashley R Bardon  2   3 , Peter Mogere  4 , Catherine Kiptinness  4 , Edinah Casmir  4 , Njeri Wairimu  4 , Emmah Owidi  4 , Phelix Okello  4 , Nelly R Mugo  4   2 , Jared M Baeten  2   5 , Kenneth Ngure #  6 , Katrina F Ortblad #  7
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Acceptability of six-monthly PrEP dispensing supported with interim HIV self-testing to simplify PrEP delivery in Kenya: findings from qualitative research

Nicholas Thuo et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: In Africa, dispensing oral HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) within already strained public health facilities has led to prolonged waiting periods and suboptimal experiences for clients. We sought to explore the acceptability of dispensing PrEP semiannually with interim HIV self-testing (HIVST) versus quarterly PrEP dispensing with clinic-based HIV testing to optimize clinic-delivered PrEP services.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative study within a non-inferiority individual-level randomized controlled trial testing the effect of six-monthly PrEP dispensing with HIVST compared to the standard-of-care three-monthly PrEP dispensing on PrEP clinical outcomes in Kenya (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03593629). Eligible participants were ≥ 18 years, refilling PrEP for the first time, and either in an HIV serodifferent relationship (men and women) or singly enrolled (women only). A subset of participants in the intervention group completed serial in-depth interviews (IDIs) at enrollment, six months, and 12 months. We utilized stratified purposive sampling to ensure representation across participant groups. We analyzed our qualitative data thematically using a combination of inductive and deductive approaches, the latter guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).

Results: Between May 2018 and June 2021, we conducted 120 serial IDIs with 55 participants; 64% (35/55) were in a serodifferent relationship, 64% (35/55) were women, and the median age was 32 years (IQR 27-40). Overall, participants found this novel PrEP delivery model highly acceptable; it was well-liked, private (TFA construct: affective attitude), and less burdensome (TFA construct: burden) compared to standard PrEP delivery. Additionally, participants were confident in their ability to participate in the intervention (TFA construct: self-efficacy). Some participants, however, highlighted model disadvantages, including fewer opportunities for in-person counseling and potentially less accurate HIV testing (TFA construct: opportunity costs). Ultimately, most participants reported that the intervention allowed them to achieve their HIV prevention goals (TFA construct: perceived effectiveness) and that their confidence in at-home HIVST and PrEP continuation increased following each semiannual clinic visit.

Conclusions: Semiannual PrEP clinic visits supported with six-monthly drug dispensing and interim HIVST was acceptable among PrEP users who experienced the intervention in Kenya. More comprehensive pre-intervention counseling and training on HIVST may help alleviate the client concerns presented, which were often resolved over time with intervention experience.

Keywords: Acceptability; Differentiated service delivery; HIV self-testing; Implementation science; Multi-month drug dispensing; PrEP.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JMB is an employee of Gilead Sciences, and PM is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals, both outside this scope of work. For the remaining authors, no competing interests were declared.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Participants’ perceived acceptability of six-monthly PrEP dispensing with interim HIV self-testing
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Fonner VA, Dalglish SL, Kennedy CE, Baggaley R, O’Reilly KR, Koechlin FM, et al. Effectiveness and safety of oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis for all populations. AIDS. 2016;30(12):1973. - PMC - PubMed
    1. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. PrEP Watch: Country Overview: Kenya 2023 [Internet]. New York (US): AVAC; 2022 [cited 2022 Nov 1]. https://www.prepwatch.org/countries/kenya/
    1. Irungu EM, Mugwanya KK, Mugo NR, Bukusi EA, Donnell D, Odoyo J, et al. Integration of pre-exposure prophylaxis services into public HIV care clinics in Kenya: a pragmatic stepped-wedge randomised trial. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(12):e1730–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mugo NR, Ngure K, Kiragu M, Irungu E, Kilonzo N. The preexposure prophylaxis revolution; from clinical trials to programmatic implementation. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2016;11(1):80–6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gomez GB, Borquez A, Case KK, Wheelock A, Vassall A, Hankins C. The cost and impact of scaling up pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness modelling studies. PLoS Med. 2013;10(3):e1001401. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

Associated data