Public Health Science Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA.
Centre for Applied Health and Social Care Research, Kingston University and St Georges University of London, London, UK.
AIDS Behav. 2023 Feb;27(2):600-617. doi: 10.1007/s10461-022-03796-1. Epub 2022 Jul 23.
We reviewed the literature on the assessment of acceptability of HIV prevention and treatment interventions and service delivery strategies. Following PRISMA guidelines, we screened 601 studies published from 2015 to 2020 and included 217 in our review. Of 384 excluded studies, 21% were excluded because they relied on retention as the sole acceptability indicator. Of 217 included studies, only 16% were rated at our highest tier of methodological rigor. Operational definitions of acceptability varied widely and failed to comprehensively represent the suggested constructs in current acceptability frameworks. Overall, 25 studies used formal quantitative assessments (including four adapted measures used in prior studies) and six incorporated frameworks of acceptability. Findings suggest acceptability assessment in recent HIV intervention and service delivery research lacks harmonization and rigor. We offer guidelines for best practices and future research, which are timely and critical in this era of informed choice and novel options for HIV prevention and treatment.
我们回顾了关于评估 HIV 预防和治疗干预措施以及服务提供策略的可接受性的文献。根据 PRISMA 指南，我们筛选了 2015 年至 2020 年发表的 601 项研究，并将 217 项纳入我们的综述。在被排除的 384 项研究中，21%是因为仅依赖保留作为唯一的可接受性指标而被排除。在纳入的 217 项研究中，只有 16%被评为我们方法学严谨性的最高级别。可接受性的操作定义差异很大，未能全面代表当前可接受性框架中建议的构建。总体而言，25 项研究使用了正式的定量评估（包括四项在先前研究中使用的改编措施），六项研究纳入了可接受性框架。研究结果表明，最近的 HIV 干预和服务提供研究中的可接受性评估缺乏协调和严谨性。我们提供了最佳实践和未来研究的指南，这在知情选择和新型 HIV 预防和治疗选择的时代是及时和关键的。
