IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v14y2021i2d10.1007_s40271-020-00486-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eliciting Preferences for HIV Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • S. Wilson Beckham

    (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health)

  • Norah L. Crossnohere

    (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    The Ohio State University College of Medicine)

  • Margaret Gross

    (North Carolina State University)

  • John F. P. Bridges

    (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
    The Ohio State University College of Medicine)

Abstract

Background Many human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention technologies (pre-exposure prophylaxis, microbicides, vaccines) are available or in development. Preference elicitation methods provide insight into client preferences that may be used to optimize products and services. Given increased utilization of such methods in HIV prevention, this article identifies and reviews these methods and synthesizes their application to HIV prevention technologies. Methods In May 2020, we systematically searched peer-reviewed literature in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science for studies employing quantitative preference elicitation methods to measure preferences for HIV prevention technologies among populations of any age, sex, or location. Quality assessment used an existing checklist (PREFS) and a novel adaptation of the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (PROSPERO #CRD42018087027). Results We screened 5022 titles and abstracts, reviewed 318 full texts, and included 84 studies. Common methods employed were discrete-choice experiment (33%), conjoint analysis (25%), and willingness-to-participate/try/accept (21%). Studies were conducted in 25 countries and had a mean of 768 participants (range = 26–7176), two-thirds of them male. Common HIV prevention technologies included pre-exposure prophylaxis (23%), voluntary testing and counseling (19%), HIV self-testing (17%), vaccines (15%), and topical microbicides (9%). Most attributes focused on product design (side effects, frequency), service design (provider type, location), acceptability or willingness to accept/pay; results are summarized in these categories, by prevention type. Mean quality-adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale score was 4.5/8 (standard deviation = 2.1) and mean PREFS scores was 3.47/5 (standard deviation = 0.81). Conclusions This review synthesizes extant literature on quantitative measurement of preferences for HIV prevention technologies. This can enable practitioners to improve prevention products and interventions, and ultimately reduce HIV incidence.

Suggested Citation

  • S. Wilson Beckham & Norah L. Crossnohere & Margaret Gross & John F. P. Bridges, 2021. "Eliciting Preferences for HIV Prevention Technologies: A Systematic Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(2), pages 151-174, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00486-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-020-00486-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-020-00486-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-020-00486-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Quaife & Peter Vickerman & Shanthi Manian & Robyn Eakle & Maria A. Cabrera‐Escobar & Sinead Delany‐Moretlwe & Fern Terris‐Prestholt, 2018. "The effect of HIV prevention products on incentives to supply condomless commercial sex among female sex workers in South Africa," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1550-1566, October.
    2. Jennifer B Griffin & Kathleen Ridgeway & Elizabeth Montgomery & Kristine Torjesen & Rachel Clark & Jill Peterson & Rachel Baggaley & Ariane van der Straten, 2019. "Vaginal ring acceptability and related preferences among women in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and narrative synthesis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-22, November.
    3. Pietro Amedeo Modesti & Gianpaolo Reboldi & Francesco P Cappuccio & Charles Agyemang & Giuseppe Remuzzi & Stefano Rapi & Eleonora Perruolo & Gianfranco Parati & ESH Working Group on CV Risk in Low Res, 2016. "Panethnic Differences in Blood Pressure in Europe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, January.
    4. Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Uguru, Nkolika & Ezeoke, Uche & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Sibeudu, Tochi, 2011. "Voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) for HIV/AIDS: A study of the knowledge, awareness and willingness to pay for VCT among students in tertiary institutions in Enugu State Nigeria," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(3), pages 277-284, March.
    5. Jan Ostermann & Derek Brown & Axel Mühlbacher & Bernard Njau & Nathan Thielman, 2015. "Would you test for 5000 Shillings? HIV risk and willingness to accept HIV testing in Tanzania," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-11, December.
    6. Tara Maddala & Kathryn A. Phillips & F. Reed Johnson, 2003. "An experiment on simplifying conjoint analysis designs for measuring preferences," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(12), pages 1035-1047, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Galárraga, Omar & Kuo, Caroline & Mtukushe, Bulelwa & Maughan-Brown, Brendan & Harrison, Abigail & Hoare, Jackie, 2020. "iSAY (incentives for South African youth): Stated preferences of young people living with HIV," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    2. Bart Neuts & Peter Nijkamp & Eveline Van Leeuwen, 2012. "Crowding Externalities from Tourist Use of Urban Space," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(3), pages 649-670, June.
    3. Juan Marcos González & Justin Doan & David J. Gebben & Marco Boeri & Mayer Fishman, 2018. "Comparing the Relative Importance of Attributes of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treatments to Patients and Physicians in the United States: A Discrete-Choice Experiment," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(8), pages 973-986, August.
    4. Mandy Ryan & Mabelle Amaya‐Amaya, 2005. "‘Threats’ to and hopes for estimating benefits," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(6), pages 609-619, June.
    5. Lucía Ramírez Martínez-Acitores & Fernando Hernández Ruiz de Azcárate & Elisabeth Casañas & Julia Serrano & Gonzalo Hernández & Rosa María López-Pintor, 2020. "Xerostomia and Salivary Flow in Patients Taking Antihypertensive Drugs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-16, April.
    6. Semra Özdemir & Ateesha F. Mohamed & F. Reed Johnson & A. Brett Hauber, 2010. "Who pays attention in stated‐choice surveys?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 111-118, January.
    7. Jorien Veldwijk & Stella Maria Marceta & Joffre Dan Swait & Stefan Adriaan Lipman & Esther Wilhelmina Bekker-Grob, 2023. "Taking the Shortcut: Simplifying Heuristics in Discrete Choice Experiments," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(4), pages 301-315, July.
    8. Denise Bijlenga & Gouke J. Bonsel & Erwin Birnie, 2011. "Eliciting willingness to pay in obstetrics: comparing a direct and an indirect valuation method for complex health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(11), pages 1392-1406, November.
    9. Teshager Weldegiorgis Abate & Balew Zeleke & Ashenafi Genanew & Bidiru Weldegiorgis Abate, 2021. "The burden of stroke and modifiable risk factors in Ethiopia: A systemic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-19, November.
    10. F. Reed Johnson & Ateesha F. Mohamed & Semra Özdemir & Deborah A. Marshall & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2011. "How does cost matter in health‐care discrete‐choice experiments?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 323-330, March.
    11. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    12. Deborah A. Marshall & F. Reed Johnson & Nathalie A. Kulin & Semra Özdemir & Judith M. E. Walsh & John K. Marshall & Stephanie Van Bebber & Kathryn A. Phillips, 2009. "How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated‐choice survey," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(12), pages 1420-1439, December.
    13. Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Sharp, Basil M.H., 2010. "Choice experiment adaptive design benefits: a case study," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 54(4), pages 1-14.
    14. Mickael Bech & Trine Kjaer & Jørgen Lauridsen, 2011. "Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 273-286, March.
    15. Yasushi Ohkusa & Tamie Sugawara, 2006. "Cost-effectiveness analysis and its application for policy evaluation for medicine or public health," Public Policy Review, Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Finance Japan, vol. 2(1), pages 45-76, January.
    16. Marcel F. Jonker & Bas Donkers & Esther de Bekker‐Grob & Elly A. Stolk, 2019. "Attribute level overlap (and color coding) can reduce task complexity, improve choice consistency, and decrease the dropout rate in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(3), pages 350-363, March.
    17. Kerr, Geoffrey N. & Sharp, Basil M.H., 2009. "Efficiency benefits of choice model experimental design updating: a case study," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 47623, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Esther Bekker-Grob & John Rose & Michiel Bliemer, 2013. "A Closer Look at Decision and Analyst Error by Including Nonlinearities in Discrete Choice Models: Implications on Willingness-to-Pay Estimates Derived from Discrete Choice Data in Healthcare," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 31(12), pages 1169-1183, December.
    19. John Bridges & Elizabeth Kinter & Annette Schmeding & Ina Rudolph & Axel Mühlbacher, 2011. "Can Patients Diagnosed with Schizophrenia Complete Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Tasks?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 4(4), pages 267-275, December.
    20. Harry Telser & Karolin Becker & Peter Zweifel, 2008. "Validity and Reliability of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 1(4), pages 283-298, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:14:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s40271-020-00486-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.