Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Acceptability Assessment in HIV Prevention and Treatment Intervention and Service Delivery Research: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Analysis

  • Substantive Review
  • Published:
AIDS and Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We reviewed the literature on the assessment of acceptability of HIV prevention and treatment interventions and service delivery strategies. Following PRISMA guidelines, we screened 601 studies published from 2015 to 2020 and included 217 in our review. Of 384 excluded studies, 21% were excluded because they relied on retention as the sole acceptability indicator. Of 217 included studies, only 16% were rated at our highest tier of methodological rigor. Operational definitions of acceptability varied widely and failed to comprehensively represent the suggested constructs in current acceptability frameworks. Overall, 25 studies used formal quantitative assessments (including four adapted measures used in prior studies) and six incorporated frameworks of acceptability. Findings suggest acceptability assessment in recent HIV intervention and service delivery research lacks harmonization and rigor. We offer guidelines for best practices and future research, which are timely and critical in this era of informed choice and novel options for HIV prevention and treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mensch BS, van der Straten A, Katzen LL. Acceptability in microbicide and PrEP Trials: current status and a reconceptualization. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2012;7(6):534–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Morrow KM, Ruiz MS. Assessing microbicide acceptability: a comprehensive and integrated approach. AIDS Behav. 2008;12(2):272–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Donenberg GR, Merrill KG, Obiezu-Umeh C, Nwaozuru U, Blachman-Demner D, Subramanian S, et al. Harmonizing implementation and outcome data across HIV prevention and care studies in resource-constrained settings. Glob Implement Res Appl. 2022;7:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Griffin JB, Ridgeway K, Montgomery E, Torjesen K, Clark R, Peterson J, et al. Vaginal ring acceptability and related preferences among women in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(11): e0224898.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Atkins K, Yeh PT, Kennedy CE, Fonner VA, Sweat MD, O’Reilly KR, et al. Service delivery interventions to increase uptake of voluntary medical male circumcision for HIV prevention: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(1): e0227755.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Young I, McDaid L. How acceptable are antiretrovirals for the prevention of sexually transmitted HIV? A review of research on the acceptability of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment as prevention. AIDS Behav. 2013;18(2):195–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Montgomery ET, van der Straten A, Chitukuta M, Reddy K, Woeber K, Atujuna M, et al. Acceptability and use of a dapivirine vaginal ring in a phase III trial. AIDS Lond Engl. 2017;31(8):1159–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Golub SA, Operario D, Gorbach PM. Pre-exposure prophylaxis state of the science: empirical analogies for research and implementation. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2010;7(4):201–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carballo-Diéguez A, Exner T, Dolezal C, Pickard R, Lin P, Mayer KH. Rectal microbicide acceptability: results of a volume escalation trial. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34(4):224–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Coly A, Gorbach PM. Microbicide acceptability research: recent findings and evolution across phases of product development. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2008;3(5):581–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mantell JE, Myer L, Carballo-Diéguez A, Stein Z, Ramjee G, Morar NS, et al. Microbicide acceptability research: current approaches and future directions. Soc Sci Med 1982. 2005;60(2):319–30.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Severy LJ, Tolley E, Woodsong C, Guest G. A framework for examining the sustained acceptability of microbicides. AIDS Behav. 2005;9(1):121–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Celum CL, Gill K, Morton JF, Stein G, Myers L, Thomas KK, et al. Incentives conditioned on tenofovir levels to support PrEP adherence among young South African women: a randomized trial. J Int AIDS Soc. 2020;23(11): e25636.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Somefun OD, Casale M, Haupt Ronnie G, Desmond C, Cluver L, Sherr L. Decade of research into the acceptability of interventions aimed at improving adolescent and youth health and social outcomes in Africa: a systematic review and evidence map. BMJ Open. 2021;11(12): e055160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of health care interventions: a theoretical framework and proposed research agenda. Br J Health Psychol. 2018;23(3):519–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Woodsong C, Alleman P. Sexual pleasure, gender power and microbicide acceptability in Zimbabwe and Malawi. AIDS Educ Prev. 2008;20(2):171–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;29(372): n71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tarnowski KJ, Simonian SJ. Assessing treatment acceptance: the Abbreviated Acceptability Rating Profile. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 1992;23(2):101–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Larsen DL, Attkisson CC, Hargreaves WA, Nguyen TD. Assessment of client/patient satisfaction: development of a general scale. Eval Program Plann. 1979;2(3):197–207.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Brooke J. SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, McClelland IL, Weerdmeester B, editors. Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor and Francis; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schnall R, Cho H, Liu J. Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (Health-ITUES) for Usability Assessment of Mobile Health Technology: validation Study. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2018;6(1): e4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lewis JR. Psychometric evaluation of the post-study system usability questionnaire: the PSSUQ. Proc Hum Factors Soc Annu Meet. 1992;36(16):1259–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sullivan PS, Driggers R, Stekler JD, Siegler A, Goldenberg T, McDougal SJ, et al. Usability and acceptability of a mobile comprehensive HIV prevention app for men who have sex with men: a pilot study. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2017;5(3): e26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A, et al. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(1):26–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci IS. 2012;24(7):37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mayo AJ, Browne EN, Montgomery ET, Torjesen K, Palanee-Phillips T, Jeenarain N, et al. Acceptability of the dapivirine vaginal ring for HIV-1 prevention and association with adherence in a phase III trial. AIDS Behav. 2021;25(8):2430–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. van der Straten A, Browne EN, Shapley-Quinn MK, Brown ER, Reddy K, Scheckter R, et al. First impressions matter: how initial worries influence adherence to the dapivirine vaginal ring. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1999. 2019;81(3):304–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sekhon M, van der Straten A. Pregnant and breastfeeding women’s prospective acceptability of two biomedical HIV prevention approaches in Sub Saharan Africa: a multisite qualitative analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(11):e0259779.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Development of a theory-informed questionnaire to assess the acceptability of healthcare interventions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;22:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  34. WHO: Handbook for Guideline Development: 2nd edition. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/145714/9789241548960_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 2014. accessed 13 Oct 2021

  35. Koechlin FM, Fonner VA, Dalglish SL, O’Reilly KR, Baggaley R, Grant RM, et al. Values and preferences on the use of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention among multiple populations: a systematic review of the literature. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1325–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Giese J, Cote J. Defining consumer satisfaction. Acad Mark Sci Rev. 2000;1(4):1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rothschild CW, Brown W, Drake AL. Incorporating method dissatisfaction into unmet need for contraception: implications for measurement and impact. Stud Fam Plann. 2021;52(1):95–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC, Palda VA, Lemieux-Charles L, Grimshaw JM. How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability. Implement Sci IS. 2011;22(6):26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Grudniewicz A, Bhattacharyya O, McKibbon KA, Straus SE. Redesigning printed educational materials for primary care physicians: design improvements increase usability. Implement Sci IS. 2015;4(10):156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci IS. 2015;21(10):53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Baron D, Scorgie F, Ramskin L, Khoza N, Schutzman J, Stangl A, et al. “You talk about problems until you feel free”: South African adolescent girls’ and young women’s narratives on the value of HIV prevention peer support clubs. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Velloza J, Poovan N, Ndlovu N, Khoza N, Morton JF, Omony J, et al. Adaptive HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis adherence interventions for young South African women: Study protocol for a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(4): e0266665.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Ngure K, Ortblad KF, Mogere P, Bardon AR, Thomas KT, Mangale D, et al. Six-month PrEP dispensing with HIV self-testing to improve the efficiency of delivery in Kenya: a randomized non-inferiority implementation trial. Lancet HIV. 2022;9:e464–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wei SS, Zou YF, Xu YF, Liu JJ, Nong QX, Bai Y, Shi Y, Zhong XN, Huang WX, Liang H, Huang AL. Acceptability and influencing factors of pre-exposure prophylaxis among men who have sex with men in Guangxi. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi Zhonghua Liuxingbingxue Zazhi. 2011;32(8):786–8.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Amico KR, Mansoor LE, Corneli A, Torjesen K, van der Straten A. Adherence support approaches in biomedical HIV prevention trials: experiences, insights and future directions from four multisite prevention trials. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(6):2143–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This review was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (Grant Nos. P30 MH123248, K99 MH123369, K99 MH121166) and the Office of HIV/AIDS Network Coordination (HANC) which is funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the Division of AIDS, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services ( Grant No. UM1 AI068614), entitled Leadership Group for a Global HIV Vaccine Clinical Trials (Office of HIV/AIDS Network Coordination) with additional support from the National Institute of Mental Health.

Funding

Funding was provided by National Institute of Mental Health (Grant Nos. P30 MH123248, K99 MH121166, K99 MH123369), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Grant No. AI068614).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public Health Science Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA

    Katrina F. Ortblad

  2. Centre for Applied Health and Social Care Research, Kingston University and St Georges University of London, London, UK

    Mandeep Sekhon

  3. Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King’s College London, London, UK

    Mandeep Sekhon

  4. Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

    Liying Wang & Jane M. Simoni

  5. Seattle University, Seattle, USA

    Stella Roth

  6. Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA

    Ariane van der Straten

  7. ASTRA Consulting, Kensington, USA

    Ariane van der Straten

  8. Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

    Jane M. Simoni

  9. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA

    Jennifer Velloza

Authors
  1. Katrina F. Ortblad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mandeep Sekhon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liying Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stella Roth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ariane van der Straten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jane M. Simoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jennifer Velloza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to the review of the articles, extraction of data, drafts and edits of the manuscript, and interpretation of results.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrina F. Ortblad.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No author reports any conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables

Table 4 Definition of constructs in the theoretical framework of acceptability
Full size table

4,

Table 5 Validated scales for acceptability assessment identified from the systematic review
Full size table

5 and

Table 6 Theories and frameworks for qualitative acceptability assessment identified from the systematic review
Full size table

6.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ortblad, K.F., Sekhon, M., Wang, L. et al. Acceptability Assessment in HIV Prevention and Treatment Intervention and Service Delivery Research: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Analysis. AIDS Behav 27, 600–617 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-022-03796-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-022-03796-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation