University of Michigan, School of Social Work, Office 2850, 1080 South University, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
University of Michigan, Anthropology, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
AIDS Behav. 2019 Oct;23(10):2761-2778. doi: 10.1007/s10461-019-02577-7.
Methodological limitations in PrEP implementation studies may explain why PrEP implementation is lagging. This methodological review provides a description and critique of the methods used to identify barriers to PrEP implementation in the United States (2007-18). For each selected article, we provide: (1) research questions; (2) measures; (3) design; (4) sample (size and type); and (5) theoretical orientation. Among 79 articles which identified knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral and social/structural barriers to PrEP implementation, 51 (65%) were quantitative; 25 (32%) qualitative; and 3 (4%) were mixed-methods; overall, just one-half described a conceptual approach. About two-thirds of articles were conducted with patients and one-third with healthcare providers. Our review reveals a paucity of longitudinal, mixed-methods, and ethnographic/observational research and guiding theoretical frameworks; thus, the applicability of results are limited. We recommend that interventions aimed at PrEP implementation address barriers situated at multiple ecological domains, and thus improve PrEP access, uptake, and adherence.
研究方法的局限性可能是导致 PrEP 实施滞后的原因。本方法学综述描述并评价了在美国(2007-2018 年)确定 PrEP 实施障碍的方法。对于每篇选定的文章,我们提供:(1)研究问题;(2)措施;(3)设计;(4)样本(大小和类型);和(5)理论取向。在确定 PrEP 实施的知识、态度、行为以及社会/结构障碍的 79 篇文章中,51 篇(65%)为定量研究;25 篇(32%)为定性研究;3 篇(4%)为混合方法研究;总体而言,只有一半描述了概念方法。约三分之二的文章针对患者,三分之一针对医疗保健提供者。我们的综述揭示了缺乏纵向、混合方法和民族志/观察研究以及指导理论框架的问题;因此,研究结果的适用性有限。我们建议旨在实施 PrEP 的干预措施应解决多个生态领域的障碍,从而提高 PrEP 的可及性、接受度和依从性。