Prioritization of Evidence-Based and Evidence-Informed Interventions for Retention in Medical Care for Persons with HIV

Collins, Charles B.; Higa, Darrel H.; Taylor, Jocelyn; Wright, Clive; Murray, Kimberly H; Pitasi, Marc A.; Greene, Yvonne; Lyles, Cynthia M.; Edwards, Arlene; Andia, Jonny; Stallworth, JoAna; Alvarez, Jorge

doi:10.1007/s10461-022-03958-1

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also assessed whether the intervention was acceptable to agency staff implementing the intervention and whether agency implementing staff were consulted in any way on program design and integration with other agency services. We used a modified RE-AIM assessment, which consisted of 29 questions with 'Yes', 'No', 'Not Applicable' or/and 'Nor Reported' responses [42]. A possible total score was À18 to 28.…”

Section: Data Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of alternative HIV preexposure prophylaxis care delivery models to improve preexposure prophylaxis services

Kamitani

Mizuno

DeLuca

et al. 2023

Aids

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To identify types, evidence, and study gaps of alternative HIV preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) care delivery models in the published literature. Design: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. Methods: We searched in the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention Research Synthesis (PRS) database through December 2022 (PROSPERO CRD42022311747). We included studies published in English that reported implementation of alternative PrEP care delivery models. Two reviewers independently reviewed the full text and extracted data by using standard forms. Risk of bias was assessed using the adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Those that met our study criteria were evaluated for efficacy against CDC Evidence-Based Intervention (EBI) or Evidence-Informed Intervention (EI) criteria or Health Resources and Services Administration Emergency Strategy (ES) criteria, or for applicability by using an assessment based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. Results: This review identified 16 studies published between 2018 and 2022 that implemented alternative prescriber (n = 8), alternative setting for care (n = 4), alternative setting for laboratory screening (n = 1), or a combination of the above (n = 3) . The majority of studies were US-based (n = 12) with low risk of bias (n = 11). None of the identified studies met EBI, EI, or ES criteria. Promising applicability was found for pharmacists prescribers, telePrEP, and mail-in testing. Conclusions: Delivery of PrEP services outside of the traditional care system by expanding providers of PrEP care (e.g. pharmacist prescribers), as well as the settings of PrEP care (i.e. telePrEP) and laboratory screening (i.e. mail-in testing) may increase PrEP access and care delivery.

show abstract

Section: Data Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%