RESUMEN
Background: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is recommended by the World Health Organization and the Kenyan Ministry of Health for HIV prevention in pregnancy and postpartum for women at risk for HIV. Integration of PrEP into antenatal care is promising, but delivery gaps exist in the face of healthcare provider shortages in resource-limited settings. Methods: Between May and November 2021, we conducted a difference-in-differences study (3 months pre-intervention data collection and 3 months post-intervention data collection) analyzing four intervention facilities, where the strategies were implemented, and four comparison facilities, where no strategies were implemented. We tested a combination of three implementation strategies-video-based PrEP information in the waiting bay, HIV self-testing, and dispensing of PrEP in the antenatal care rooms-to improve PrEP delivery. We compared absolute changes in the proportion of antenatal attendees screened for PrEP (PrEP penetration), the proportion receiving all PrEP-specific steps in a visit (HIV testing, risk screening, and PrEP counseling) (PrEP fidelity), and client PrEP knowledge, client satisfaction, and waiting time and service time (a priori outcomes); post hoc, we compared the proportion offered PrEP (PrEP offer) and completing HIV testing. We measured provider perceptions of the acceptability and appropriateness of the implementation strategies. Results: We observed significant improvements in PrEP penetration, PrEP offer, satisfaction, and knowledge (p < 0.05) and improvements in fidelity that trended towards significance (p = 0.057). PrEP penetration increased 5 percentage points (p = 0.008), PrEP fidelity increased 8 percentage points (p = 0.057), and PrEP offer increased 4 percentage points (p = 0.003) in intervention vs. comparison facilities. Client PrEP knowledge increased by 1.7 out of 6 total points (p < 0.001) and client satisfaction increased by 0.7 out of 24 total points (p = 0.003) in intervention vs. comparison facilities. We observed no changes in service time (0.09-min decrease; p = 0.435) and a small increase in waiting time (0.33-min increase; p = 0.005). HIV testing among those eligible did not change (1.5 percentage point decrease, p = 0.800). Providers felt the implementation strategies were acceptable and appropriate (median acceptability: 20/20; median appropriateness: 19.5/20). However, absolute levels of each step of the PrEP cascade remained suboptimal. Conclusions: An implementation strategy package with video information, HIV self-testing, and co-location of medication dispensing enhanced PrEP delivery across several implementation outcomes and client satisfaction, while not substantially increasing wait time or decreasing provider-client contact time. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier, NCT04712994.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is a higher risk for HIV acquisition during pregnancy and postpartum. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is recommended during this period for those at high risk of infection; integrated delivery in maternal and child health (MCH) clinics is feasible and acceptable but requires implementation optimization. METHODS: The PrEP in Pregnancy, Accelerating Reach and Efficiency study (PrEPARE; NCT04712994) engaged stakeholders to prioritize determinants of PrEP delivery (using Likert scores) and prioritize PrEP delivery implementation strategies. Using a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, we conducted quantitative surveys with healthcare workers at 55 facilities in Western Kenya and a stakeholder workshop (including nurses, pharmacists, counselors, and county and national policymakers), yielding visual plots of stakeholders' perceived feasibility and effectiveness of the strategies. A stepwise elimination process was used to identify seven strategies for empirical testing. Facilitator debriefing reports from the workshop were used to qualitatively assess the decision-making process. RESULTS: Among 146 healthcare workers, the strongest reported barriers to PrEP delivery were insufficient providers and inadequate training, insufficient space, and high volume of patients. Sixteen strategies were assessed, 14 of which were included in the final analysis. Among rankings from 182 healthcare workers and 44 PrEP policymakers and implementers, seven strategies were eliminated based on low post-workshop ranking scores (bottom 50th percentile) or being perceived as low feasibility or low effectiveness for at least 50% of the workshop groups. The top seven strategies included delivering PrEP within MCH clinics instead of pharmacies, fast-tracking PrEP clients to reduce waiting time, delivering PrEP-related health talks in waiting bays, task shifting PrEP counseling, task shifting PrEP risk assessments, training different providers to deliver PrEP, and retraining providers on PrEP delivery. All top seven ranked strategies were grouped into bundles for subsequent testing. Facilitator debriefing reports generally aligned with rankings but noted how stakeholders' decision-making changed when considering the impact of strategies on facility staff and non-PrEP clients. CONCLUSIONS: The most impactful barriers to integrated PrEP delivery in MCH clinics were insufficient staffing and space. Implementation strategies prioritized through multiple methods of stakeholder input focused on co-location of services and increasing clinic efficiency. Future testing of these stakeholder-prioritized strategy bundles will be conducted to assess the effectiveness and implementation outcomes.
RESUMEN
Background: Risk of HIV acquisition is high during pregnancy and postpartum, and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is recommended for peripartum populations. Integrating PrEP into maternal and child health (MCH) clinics is feasible and acceptable. Understanding clinics' service availability and readiness is essential for effective scale up. Methods: The PrEP in Pregnancy, Accelerating Reach and Efficiency study (PrEPARE; NCT04712994) engaged PrEP-experienced facilities previously linked to a programmatic or research study in Western Kenya to document available services and commodities via a modified service availability and readiness assessment (SARA) survey with 20 PrEP tracer items covering: staffing/guidelines, services/equipment, and medicines/commodities. Facilities' prior study engagement occurred between 2017 and 2019; SARA survey data was collected between April 2020 and June 2021. Descriptive statistics were stratified by prior study engagement. ANOVA tests assessed associations between facility characteristics and gaps. Fisher's tests assessed differences in commodity availability and stockouts. Results: Of the 55 facilities surveyed, 60% had received PrEP training in the last two years, 95% offered PrEP integrated into MCH, and 64% and 78% had both auditory and visual privacy in PrEP and HIV testing service (HTS) delivery spaces, respectively. Supervision frequency was heterogeneous, but 82% had received a supervision visit within 3 months. Availability of commodities was variable and the most commonly unavailable commodities were PrEP in MCH (71% available) and risk assessment screening tool (RAST) and PrEP cards (60% and 75% available, respectively). The number of service and commodity gaps per facility ranged from zero to eight (median: 3; IQR: 2, 5). The most frequent gaps were: PrEP training and risk assessment cards (40% each), lack of privacy in PrEP (36%) and HIV testing services (31%) spaces, PrEP pills in MCH (29%), and PrEP cards (25%). There were no differences in mean number of gaps by county, previous study engagement, or public vs. private status. Level 4 facilities had fewer gaps (mean 2.2) than level 2, 3, and 5 facilities (mean 5.7, 4.5, and 5.3 respectively; p < 0.001). Conclusions: PrEP service availability and readiness was generally high across MCH facilities. However, there is a need for increased frequency of provider training and supportive supervision focused on fidelity. To address key commodity stockouts such as PrEP pills, implementation of electronic logistics management information systems may be needed. Targeting these gaps is essential to effectively scale up integrated PrEP delivery, especially among facilities with limited infrastructure.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus about how to prioritize potential implementation strategies for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) delivery. We compared several prioritization methods for their agreement and pragmatism in practice in a resource-limited setting. METHODS: We engaged diverse stakeholders with clinical PrEP delivery and PrEP decision-making experience across 55 facilities in Kenya to prioritize 16 PrEP delivery strategies. We compared four strategy prioritization methods: (1) "past experience surveys" with experienced practitioners reflecting on implementation experience (N = 182); (2 and 3) "pre- and post-small-group ranking" surveys before and after group discussion (N = 44 and 40); (4) "go-zone" quadrant plots of perceived effectiveness vs feasibility. Kendall's correlation analysis was used to compare strategy prioritization using the four methods. Additionally, participants were requested to group strategies into three bundles with up to four strategies/bundle by phone and online survey. RESULTS: The strategy ranking correlation was strongest between the pre- and post-small-group rankings (Tau: 0.648; p < 0.001). There was moderate correlation between go-zone plots and post-small-group rankings (Tau: 0.363; p = 0.079) and between past-experience surveys and post-small-group rankings (Tau: 0.385; p = 0.062). For strategy bundling, participants primarily chose bundles of strategies in the order in which they were listed, reflecting option ordering bias. Neither the phone nor online approach was effective in selecting strategy bundles. Participants agreed that the strategy ranking activities conducted during the workshop were useful in prioritizing a final set of strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Both experienced and inexperienced stakeholder participants' strategy rankings tended to prioritize strategies perceived as feasible. Small group discussions focused on feasibility and effectiveness revealed moderately different priorities than individual rankings. The strategy bundling approach, though less time- and resource-intensive, was not effective. Future research should further compare the relative effectiveness and pragmatism of methodologies to prioritize implementation strategies.