A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Preventive Misconception and Risk Behaviors in a Multinational HIV Prevention Trial. | LitMetric

Background: Some HIV prevention research participants may hold a "preventive misconception" (PM), an overestimate of the probability or level of personal protection afforded by trial participation. However, these reports typically rely upon small, retrospective qualitative assessments that did not use a standardized approach.

Methods: We administered a measure of PM called PREMIS, during Microbicide Trials Network 020-A Study to Prevent Infection with a Ring for Extended Use, a large, multicenter, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of a dapivirine vaginal ring among women at risk for HIV infection in Malawi, South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. The maximum follow-up period was 2.6 years.

Results: One thousand two hundred sixty-one respondents completed PREMIS at their month 3 visit (M3); 2085 at their month 12 visit (M12); and 1010 at both visits. Most participants expressed high expectations of personal benefit (EPB) and that at least one of the rings used in the trial would reduce the risk of getting HIV (expectation of maximum aggregate benefit or EMAB). There was a moderate positive correlation between EPB and EMAB at M3 (r = .43, 95% CI: .37, .47) and M12 (r = .44, 95% CI: .40, .48). However, there was variability among sites in the strength of the relationship. There was no relationship between either expectation variable and condom use, adherence, or HIV infection.

Conclusions: A majority of trial participants expressed some belief that their risk of HIV infection would be reduced by using a vaginal ring, which may signal PM. However, such beliefs were not associated with adherence, condom use, or subsequent HIV infection, and there was variability across sites. Further work is needed to understand these findings.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6612263PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2019.1593257DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

risk hiv
12
hiv infection
12
hiv prevention
8
vaginal ring
8
month visit
8
participants expressed
8
variability sites
8
hiv
7
trial
5
preventive misconception
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!