CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45HIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

A Conjoint Analysis of the Acceptability of Targeted Long-Acting Injectable Antiretroviral Therapy Among Persons Living with HIV in the U.S.

Open access
Simoni, Jane M., Tapia, Kenneth, Lee, Sung-Jae, Graham, Susan M., Beima-Sofie, Kristin, Mohamed, Zahra H., Christodoulou, Joan, Ho, Rodney +1 more·2020·AIDS and Behavior
DOI 10.1007/s10461-019-02701-7PMC PMC7085450
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

With long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapy likely to be a treatment option for people living with HIV (PLWH), it is critical to assess its acceptability among potential end-users. Based on formative qualitative work and our own ongoing development of targeted long-acting products in nanosuspension formulations, we created eight hypothetical medication scenarios varying along six dichotomous attributes: administration location (home versus [vs.] clinic), dosing frequency (every 2 weeks vs. 1 week), injections per dose (one vs. two), injection pain (mild vs. moderate), injection site reaction (mild vs. moderate), and effectiveness (better vs. same as pills). PLWH from three outpatient care clinics in Seattle, WA and Riverside, CA rated acceptability (i.e., willingness to try each hypothetical medication) from 0 (very unlikely) to 100 (very likely). In conjoint analyses, we examined level and correlates of acceptability, the impact of each attribute on overall acceptability, and moderators of this effect. Participants (median age 52 years; 71% male, 34% White, 36% Black/African American, 20% Hispanic) rated acceptability of the 8 scenarios from 47.8 (standard deviation [SD] = 37.0) to 68.8 (SD = 34.1), with effectiveness (impact score = 7.3, SD = 18.7, p = 0.005) and dosing frequency (impact score = 5.7, SD = 19.6, p = 0.034) the only attributes with a significant impact on acceptability. There were no statistically significant differences in overall acceptability according to any participant socio-demographic or other characteristic; however, gender, education, employment status, and experience with and hatred/avoidance of injections moderated some effects. Overall acceptability for targeted long-acting antiretroviral treatment as proposed was modest, with superior effectiveness and lower dosing frequency most impactful on acceptability. Future acceptability research should continue to evaluate specific products in development with a full range of conjoint analytic and other techniques.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10461-019-02701-7

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. [1]World Health Organization. Guideline on when to start antiretroviral therapy and on pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. 26598776
  2. [4]Nance RM, Delaney JC, Simoni JM, HIV viral suppression trends over time among HIV-infected patients receiving care in the United States, 1997 to 2015: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169(6): 376– 84. 30140916 PMC6388406
  3. [5]Kanters S, Park JJ, Chan K, Interventions to improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet HIV 2017; 4(1): e31– 40. 27863996
  4. [6]Mbuagbaw L, Sivaramalingam B, Navarro T, Interventions for enhancing adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART): a systematic review of high quality studies. AIDS Patient Care STDs 2015; 29(5): 248– 66. 25825938 PMC4410452
  5. [7]Gulick RM, Flexner C. Long-acting HIV drugs for treatment and prevention. Annu Rev Med 2019; 70: 137– 50. 30355266
  6. [8]Margolis DA, Gonzalez-Garcia J, Stellbrink HJ, Long-acting intramuscular cabotegravir and rilpivirine in adults with HIV-1 infection (LATTE-2): 96-week results of a randomised, open-label, phase 2b, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2017; 390(10101): 1499– 510. 28750935
  7. [9]Swindels S, Andrade-Villanueva J-F, Richmond GJ, Long-acting cabotegravir + rilpivirine as maintenance therapy: Atlas Week 48 results. In: 2019 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Seattle, WA, March 4–7, 2019 Abstract 139.
  8. [10]Orkin C, Arasteh K, Hernandez-Mora MG, Long-acting cabotegravir + rilpivirine for HIV maintenance: FLAIR week 48 results. In: 2019 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Seattle, WA, March 4–7, 2019 Abstract 140LB.
  9. [11]McConnachie LA, Kinman LM, Koehn J, Long-acting profile of 4 drugs in 1 anti-HIV nanosuspension in nonhuman primates for 5 weeks after a single subcutaneous injection. J Pharm Sci 2018; 107(7): 1787– 90. 29548975 PMC6954863
  10. [12]Koehn J, Iwamoto JF, Kraft JC, Extended cell and plasma drug levels after one dose of a three-in-one nanosuspension containing lopinavir, efavirenz, and tenofovir in nonhuman primates. AIDS 2018; 32(17): 2463– 7. 30102655 PMC6482845
  11. [13]Kraft JC, McConnachie LA, Koehn J, Long-acting combination anti-HIV drug suspension enhances and sustains higher drug levels in lymph node cells than in blood cells and plasma. AIDS 2017; 31(6): 765. 28099191 PMC5345888
  12. [15]Green P and Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. J Mark Res 1990; 54: 3– 19.
  13. [16]Beusterien KM, Dziekan K, Flood E, Understanding patient preferences for HIV medications using adaptive conjoint analysis: feasibility assessment. Value Health. 2005; 8(4): 453– 61. 16091022
  14. [17]Phillips KA, Maddala T, and Johnson FR. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002; 37: 1681– 1705. 12546292 PMC1464051
  15. [18]Lee SJ, Brooks R, Bolan RK, Assessing willingness to test for HIV among men who have sex with men using conjoint analysis, evidence for uptake of the FDA-approved at-home HIV test. AIDS Care 2013; 25: 1592– 1598. 23651439 PMC3751974
  16. [19]Bristow CC, Lee SJ, Severe L, Attributes of diagnostic tests to increase uptake of dual testing for syphilis and HIV in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Int J STD AIDS 2017; 28: 259– 264. 27037111 PMC5213256
  17. [20]Holt BY, Morwitz VG, Ngo L, Microbicide preference among young women in California. J Womens Health 2006; 15: 281– 294. 16620187
  18. [21]Kinsler JJ, Cunningham WE, Nureña CR, Using conjoint analysis to measure the acceptability of rectal microbicides among men who have sex with men in four South American cities. AIDS Behav 2012; 16(6): 1436– 47. 21959986
  19. [22]Newman PA, Duan N, Lee SJ, HIV vaccine acceptability among communities at risk: the impact of vaccine characteristics. Vaccine 2006; 24(12): 2094– 101. 16332402 PMC2819665
  20. [23]Opuni M, Bishai D, Gray GE, Preferences for characteristics of antiretroviral therapy provision in Johannesburg, South Africa: results of a conjoint analysis. AIDS Behav 2010; 14: 807– 815. 19533322
  21. [24]Pines HA, Strathdee SA, Hendrix CW, Oral and vaginal HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis product attribute preferences among female sex workers in the Mexico-US border region. Int J STD AIDS 2019; 30(1): 45– 55. 30170533 PMC6391168
  22. [25]Galea JT, Kinsler JJ, Salazar X, Acceptability of pre-exposure prophylaxis as an HIV prevention strategy: barriers and facilitators to pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake among at-risk Peruvian populations. Int J STD AIDS 2011; 22: 256– 262. 21571973 PMC3096991
  23. [26]Beusterien KM, Dziekan K, Schrader S, Patient preferences among third agent HIV medications: a US and German perspective. AIDS Care 2007; 19: 982– 988. 17851994
  24. [27]Simoni JM, Beima-Sofie KJM, Mohamed ZH, Long-acting injectable antiretroviral treatment acceptability and preferences: A qualitative study among U.S. providers, adults living with HIV, and parents of youth living with HIV. AIDS Patient Care STDs 2019; 33(3): 104– 11. 30844308 PMC6442271
  25. [29]Plackett RL, Burman JP. The design of optimum multifactorial experiments. Biometrika. 1946; 33(4): 305– 25.
  26. [30]Shrestha R, Karki P, Altice FL, Measuring acceptability and preferences for implementation of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) using conjoint analysis: an application to primary HIV prevention among high risk drug users. AIDS Behav 2018; 22(4): 1228– 38. 28695388 PMC5762432
  27. [31]Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, Prior T, Marshall DA, Cunningham C, IJzerman MJ, Bridges JF. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value in Health 2016; 19(4): 300– 15. 27325321
  28. [32]Louviere JJ, Lancsar E. Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Economics, Policy and Law 2009; 4(4): 527– 46. 19715635
  29. [33]Lancsar E, Louviere J. Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26(8): 661– 77. 18620460
  30. [34]Lancsar E, Swait J. Reconceptualising the external validity of discrete choice experiments. Pharmacoeconomics 2014; 32(10): 951– 65. 24920196
  31. [35]Kim HY, Dowdy DW, Martinson NA, Kerrigan D, Tudor C, Golub J, Bridges JF, Hanrahan CF. Maternal motivation to take preventive therapy in antepartum and postpartum among HIV-positive pregnant women in South Africa: A choice experiment. AIDS and Behavior 2019; 23(7): 1689– 97. 30415430 PMC6810563
  32. [36]Gazzard B, Ali S, Muhlbacher A, Ghafouri N, Maggiolo F, Golics C, Nozza S, Jose Fuster M, Antela A, Jacques Parienti J, Dang N. Patient preferences for characteristics of antiretroviral therapies: Results from 5 European countries. Journal of the International AIDS Society 2014; 17(4). PMC4224863 25394048
  33. [37]Kruk ME, Riley PL, Palma AM, Adhikari S, Ahoua L, Arnaldo C, Belo DF, Brusamento S, Cumba LI, Dziuban EJ, El-Sadr WM. How can the health system retain women in HIV treatment for a lifetime? A discrete choice experiment in Ethiopia and Mozambique. PLoS One 2016; 11(8): e0160764. 27551785 PMC4994936
  34. [38]Miners AH, Llewellyn CD, Cooper VL, Youssef E, Pollard AJ, Lagarde M, Sabin C, Nixon E, Sachikonye M, Perry N, Fisher M. A discrete choice experiment to assess people living with HIV’s (PLWHIV’s) preferences for GP or HIV clinic appointments. Sex Transm Infect 2017; 93(2): 105– 11. 27535762 PMC5339551
  35. [39]Michaels-Igbokwe C, Lagarde M, Cairns J, Terris-Prestholt F. Designing a package of sexual and reproductive health and HIV outreach services to meet the heterogeneous preferences of young people in Malawi: results from a discrete choice experiment. Health Economics Review 2015; 5(1): 9. 25984434 PMC4424232
  36. [40]Pan SW, Durvasula M, Ong JJ, Liu C, Tang W, Fu H, Wei C, Wang C, Terris-Prestholt F, Tucker JD. No place like home? Disentangling preferences for HIV testing locations and services among men who have sex with men in China. AIDS and Behavior 2019; 23(4): 847– 59. 30565095 PMC6458980
  37. [41]Cameron MP, Newman PA, Roungprakhon S, Scarpa R. The marginal willingness-to-pay for attributes of a hypothetical HIV vaccine. Vaccine 2013; 31(36): 3712– 7. 23747452
  38. [42]Newman PA, Cameron MP, Roungprakhon S, Tepjan S, Scarpa R. Acceptability and preferences for hypothetical rectal microbicides among a community sample of young men who have sex with men and transgender women in Thailand: a discrete choice experiment. AIDS and Behavior 2016; 20(11): 2588– 601. 26696260
  39. [43]Quaife M, Eakle R, Cabrera Escobar MA, Vickerman P, Kilbourne-Brook M, Mvundura M, Delany-Moretlwe S, Terris-Prestholt F. Divergent preferences for HIV prevention: a discrete choice experiment for multipurpose HIV prevention products in South Africa. Medical Decision Making 2018; 38(1): 120– 33. 28863752
  40. [44]Kuteesa MO, Quaife M, Biraro S, Katumba KR, Seeley J, Kamali A, Nakanjako D. Acceptability and predictors of uptake of anti-retroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (prep) among fishing communities in Uganda: A cross-sectional discrete choice experiment survey. AIDS and Behavior; 2019; 1– 3. 30734882
  41. [45]Dubov A, Ogunbajo A, Altice FL, Fraenkel L. Optimizing access to PrEP based on MSM preferences: results of a discrete choice experiment. AIDS Care 2019; 31(5): 545– 53. 30554519 PMC6408226
  42. [47]Flexner C Antiretroviral implants for treatment and prevention of Hiv infection. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2018; 13(4): 374– 80. 29794816

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Simoni, J. M., Tapia, K., Lee, S.-J., Graham, S. M., Beima-Sofie, K., Mohamed, Z. H., Christodoulou, J., Ho, R., & Collier, A. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Simoni, Jane M.
ORCID
Venue
AIDS and Behavior
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-10-26
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
1226-1236
ISSN
  • 1090-7165 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3254
DOI
10.1007/s10461-019-02701-7
PMC
PMC7085450
OpenAlex
W2981928405
Cited by
45
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7
FWCI
2.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • AIDS and Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI120176, AI027757)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Keywords
long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapy, HIV, treatment acceptability, conjoint analysis, dosing frequency, injection pain, injection site reactions, willingness to try, people living with HIV
MeSH terms
Black or African American, Delayed-Action Preparations, Female, Hispanic or Latino, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, HIV Infections, Anti-Retroviral Agents, Text Messaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review