Published in

BioMed Central, BMC Health Services Research, 1(20), 2020

DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-05568-w

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

The current landscape of pre-exposure prophylaxis service delivery models for HIV prevention: a scoping review

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract Background Strengthening HIV prevention is imperative given the continued high HIV incidence worldwide. The introduction of oral PrEP as a new biomedical HIV prevention tool can be a potential game changer because of its high clinical efficacy and the feasibility of its provision to different key populations. Documenting the existing experience with PrEP service delivery in a variety of real-world settings will inform how its uptake and usage can be maximised. Methods We conducted a scoping review using the five-step framework provided by Arksey and O’Malley. We systematically searched the existing peer-reviewed international and grey literature describing the implementation of real-world PrEP service delivery models reporting on four key components: the target population of PrEP services, the setting where PrEP was delivered, PrEP providers’ professionalisation and PrEP delivery channels. We restricted our search to English language articles. No geographical or time restrictions were set. Results This review included 33 articles for charting and analysing of the results. The identified service delivery models showed that PrEP services mainly targeted people at high risk of HIV acquisition, with some models targeting specific key populations, mainly men who have sex with men. PrEP was often delivered centralised and in a clinical or hospital setting. Yet also community-based as well as home-based PrEP delivery models were reported. Providers of PrEP were mainly clinically trained health professionals, but in some rare cases community workers and lay providers also delivered PrEP. In general, in-person visits were used to deliver PrEP. More innovative digital options using mHealth and telemedicine approaches to deliver specific parts of PrEP services are currently being applied in a minority of the service delivery models in mainly high-resource settings. Conclusions A range of possible combinations was found between all four components of PrEP service delivery models. This reflects differentiation of care according to different contextual settings. More research is needed on how integration of services in these contexts could be expanded and optimised to respond to key populations with unmet HIV prevention needs in different settings.