-
PloS One 2024The propensity to accept vaccines and factors that affect vaccine acceptance and hesitancy will determine the overall success of the COVID-19 vaccination program....
The propensity to accept vaccines and factors that affect vaccine acceptance and hesitancy will determine the overall success of the COVID-19 vaccination program. Therefore, countries need to understand the factors that influence vaccine acceptance and hesitancy to prevent further future shocks, and it is necessary to have a thorough understanding of these factors. As a result, this study aims to review selected published works in the study's domain and conduct valuable analysis to determine the most influential factors in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in Ghana. The review also explored the acceptance rate of COVID-19 vaccines in Ghana. We selected published works from 2021 to April 2023 and extracted, analyzed, and summarized the findings based on the key factors that influence COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in Ghana, the acceptance rate in Ghana, the demographic factors that are often examined, and the study approach used to examine these factors. The study found that positive vaccination perception, safety, belief in vaccine efficacy, knowledge of COVID-19, and a good vaccine attitude influence COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Ghana. The negative side effects of the vaccines, mistrust in the vaccine, lack of confidence in the vaccine's safety, fear, and spiritual and religious beliefs all played significant roles in influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. For this study, the COVID-19 acceptance rates observed in the reviewed articles ranged from 17.5% to 82.6%. The demographic parameters frequently included in these studies that have a significant impact include educational attainment, gender, religious affiliation, age, and marital status. The positive perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine and concerns about its negative effects influenced Ghanaians' acceptance and hesitancy.
Topics: Humans; Ghana; COVID-19 Vaccines; COVID-19; Vaccination Hesitancy; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Vaccination; SARS-CoV-2; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
PubMed: 38917063
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305993 -
BMC Medicine Jun 2024To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important. However, the optimal administration of booster vaccine platforms remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), booster vaccination strategies are important. However, the optimal administration of booster vaccine platforms remains unclear. Herein, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of three or four heterologous versus homologous booster regimens.
METHODS
From November 3 2022 to December 21, 2023, we searched five databases for randomised clinical trials (RCT). Reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed bias risks independently with the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 tool. We conducted meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) on our primary (all-cause mortality; laboratory confirmed symptomatic and severe COVID-19; serious adverse events [SAE]) and secondary outcomes (quality of life [QoL]; adverse events [AE] considered non-serious). We assessed the evidence with the GRADE approach. Subgroup analyses were stratified for trials before and after 2023, three or four boosters, immunocompromised status, follow-up, risk of bias, heterologous booster vaccine platforms, and valency of booster.
RESULTS
We included 29 RCTs with 43 comparisons (12,538 participants). Heterologous booster regimens may not reduce the relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality (11 trials; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.33 to 2.26; I 0%; very low certainty evidence); laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 (14 trials; RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.25; I 0%; very low certainty); or severe COVID-19 (10 trials; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.33; I 0%; very low certainty). For safety outcomes, heterologous booster regimens may have no effect on SAE (27 trials; RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.95; I 0%; very low certainty) but may raise AE considered non-serious (20 trials; RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32; I 64.4%; very low certainty). No data on QoL was available. Our TSAs showed that the cumulative Z curves did not reach futility for any outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
With our current sample sizes, we were not able to infer differences of effects for any outcomes, but heterologous booster regimens seem to cause more non-serious AE. Furthermore, more robust data are instrumental to update this review.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19 Vaccines; Immunization, Secondary; COVID-19; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Adult; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38915011
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03471-3 -
Campbell Systematic Reviews Jun 2024Investment in mobile devices to support primary or elementary education is increasing and must be informed by robust evidence to demonstrate impact. This systematic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Investment in mobile devices to support primary or elementary education is increasing and must be informed by robust evidence to demonstrate impact. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials sought to identify the overall impact of mobile devices to support literacy and numeracy outcomes in mainstream primary classrooms.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to understand how mobile devices are used in primary/elementary education around the world, and in particular, determine how activities undertaken using mobile devices in the primary classroom might impact literacy and numeracy attainment for the pupils involved. Within this context, mobile devices are defined as tablets (including iPads and other branded devices), smartphones (usually those with a touchscreen interface and internet connectivity) and handheld games consoles (again usually with touchscreen and internet-enabled). The interventions of interest were those aimed at improving literacy and/or numeracy for children aged 4-12 within the primary/elementary school (or equivalent) classroom.Specifically, the review aimed to answer the following research questions: -What is the effect of mobile device integration in the primary school classroom on children's literacy and numeracy outcomes?-Are there specific devices which are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Tablets, smartphones, or handheld games consoles)-Are there specific classroom integration activities which moderate effectiveness in supporting literacy and numeracy?-Are there specific groups of children for whom mobile devices are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Across age group and gender).-Do the benefits of mobile devices for learning last for any time beyond the study?-What is the quality of available evidence on the use of mobile devices in primary/elementary education, and where is further research needed in this regard? An Expert Advisory Group supported the review process at key stages to ensure relevance to current practice.
SEARCH METHODS
The search strategy was designed to retrieve both published and unpublished literature, and incorporated relevant journal and other databases with a focus on education and social sciences. Robust electronic database searches were undertaken (12 databases, including APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, ERIC, British Education Index and others, and relevant government and other websites), as well as a hand-search of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Contact was also made with prominent authors in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished research. All searches and author contact took place between October and November 2020. The review team acknowledges that new studies will likely have emerged since and are not captured at this time. A further update to the review in the future is important and would build on the evidence reflected here.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The review included children within mainstream primary/elementary/kindergarten education settings in any country (aged 4-12), and interventions or activities initiated within the primary school classroom (or global equivalent) that used mobile devices (including tablets, smartphones, or hand-held gaming devices) to intentionally support literacy or numeracy learning. In terms of study design, only Randomised Controlled Trials were included in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A total of 668 references were identified through a robust search strategy including published and unpublished literature. Following duplicate screening, 18 relevant studies, including 11,126 participants, 14 unique interventions, and 46 relevant outcome measures were synthesised using Robust Variance Estimation and a random effects meta-analysis model. Risk of Bias assessment was undertaken by three reviewers using the ROB2 tool to assess the quality of studies, with 13 studies rated as having some concerns, and 5 as having high risk of bias. Qualitative data was also extracted and analysed in relation to the types of interventions included to allow a comparison of the key elements of each.
MAIN RESULTS
A positive, statistically significant combined effect was found (Cohen's = 0.24, CI 0.0707 to 0.409, < 0.01), demonstrating that in the studies and interventions included, children undertaking maths or literacy interventions using mobile devices achieved higher numeracy or literacy outcomes than those using an alternative device (e.g., a laptop or desktop computer) or no device (class activities as usual). However these results should be interpreted with caution given the risk of bias assessment noted above (5 studies rated high risk of bias and 13 rated as having some concerns). As the interventions and classroom circumstances differed quite widely, further research is needed to understand any potential impact more fully.Sensitivity analysis aimed to identify moderating factors including age or gender, screen size, frequency/dosage of intervention exposure, and programme implementation features/activities (based on Puentedura's [2009] SAMR model of technology integration). There were too few studies identified to support quantitative analysis of sufficient power to draw robust conclusions on moderating factors, and insufficient data to determine impact beyond immediate post-test period. Sensitivty analysis was also undertaken to exclude the five studies identified as having a high risk of bias, to identify any impact they may have on overall findings.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, this review demonstrates that for the specific interventions and studies included, mobile device use in the classroom led to a significant, positive effect on literacy and numeracy outcomes for the children involved, bringing positive implications for their continued use in primary education. However given the concerns on risk of bias assessment reported above, the differing circumstances, interventions and treatment conditions and intensities, the findings must be interpreted with caution. The review also supports the need for further robust research to better understand what works, under what circumstances, and for whom, in the use of mobile devices to support learning.
PubMed: 38911050
DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1417 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2024The current study aims to evaluate the correlation between oxytocin augmentation and postpartum hemorrhage. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The current study aims to evaluate the correlation between oxytocin augmentation and postpartum hemorrhage.
METHOD
PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus has been searched for studies assessing the correlation between oxytocin augmentation and postpartum hemorrhage up to January 24, 2024. The search strategy included relevant keywords related to PPH and oxytocin augmentation. The risk of bias assessment was conducted by two reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). To pool the effects sized of included studies odds ratios (OR) of interest outcome with their 95% confidence interval (CI) were used.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis of the included studies showed a statistically significant association between oxytocin augmentation and increased odds of PPH (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-1.53; I2 = 84.94%; = 0.01). Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots, which appeared relatively asymmetrical, indicating significant publication bias. Galbraith plot and trim and fill plot were used for publication bias. Sensitivity analyses were performed by leave one out method.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggests that using oxytocin for labor augmentation is linked to a significant increase in the risk of PPH. It highlights the need for careful monitoring and consideration when using oxytocin, especially in low and middle-income countries where guidelines and supervision are crucial.
Topics: Humans; Oxytocin; Female; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Oxytocics
PubMed: 38910114
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2024.2369210 -
Advances in Nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) Jun 2024Microbiota in early life is closely associated with the health of infants, especially premature ones. Probiotics are important drivers of gut microbiota development in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Microbiota in early life is closely associated with the health of infants, especially premature ones. Probiotics are important drivers of gut microbiota development in preterm infants; however, there is no consensus regarding the characteristics of specific microbiota in preterm infants receiving probiotics. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis of 5 microbiome data sets (1816 stool samples from 706 preterm infants) to compare the gut microbiota of preterm infants exposed to probiotics with that of preterm infants not exposed to probiotics across populations. Despite study-specific variations, we found consistent differences in gut microbial composition and predicted functional pathways between the control and probiotic groups across different cohorts of preterm infants. The enrichment of Acinetobacter, Bifidobacterium, and Lactobacillus spp and the depletion of the potentially pathogenic bacteria Finegoldia, Veillonella, and Klebsiella spp. were the most consistent changes in the gut microbiota of preterm infants supplemented with probiotics. Probiotics drove microbiome transition into multiple preterm gut community types, and notably, preterm gut community type 3 had the highest α-diversity, with enrichment of Bifidobacterium and Bacteroides spp. At the functional level, the major predicted microbial pathways involved in peptidoglycan biosynthesis consistently increased in preterm infants supplemented with probiotics; in contrast, the crucial pathways associated with heme biosynthesis consistently decreased. Interestingly, Bifidobacterium sp. rather than Lactobacillus sp. gradually became dominant in gut microbiota of preterm infants using mixed probiotics, although both probiotic strains were administered at the same dosage. Taken together, our meta-analysis suggests that probiotics contribute to reshaping the microbial ecosystem of preterm infants at both the taxonomic and functional levels of the bacterial community. More standardized and relevant studies may contribute to better understanding the crosstalk among probiotics, the gut microbiota, and subsequent disease risk, which could help to give timely nutritional feeding guidance to preterm infants. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) as CRD42023447901.
Topics: Humans; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Probiotics; Infant, Premature; Infant, Newborn; Bifidobacterium; Feces; Bacteria; Lactobacillus; Female
PubMed: 38908894
DOI: 10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100233 -
BMC Anesthesiology Jun 2024Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine and midazolam are commonly used sedatives in children. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of sedation provided by dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam versus other sedatives including chloral hydrate, midazolam and other sedatives in pediatric sedation.
METHODS
The Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov register of controlled trials were searched from inception to June 2022. All randomized controlled trials used dexmedetomidine-midazolam in pediatric sedation were enrolled. The articles search, data extraction, and quality assessment of included studies were performed independently by two researchers. The success rate of sedation was considered as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included onset time of sedation, recovery time of sedation and occurrence of adverse events.
RESULTS
A total of 522 studies were screened and 6 RCTs were identified; 859 patients were analyzed. The administration of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam was associated with a higher sedation success rate and a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, Auditory Brainstem Response test or fiberoptic bronchoscopy examinations than the other sedatives did (OR = 2.92; 95% CI: 1.39-6.13, P = 0.005, I = 51%; OR = 0.23, 95% CI: 0.07-0.68, P = 0.008, I = 0%, respectively). Two groups did not differ significantly in recovery time and the occurrence of adverse reactions (WMD = - 0.27, 95% CI: - 0.93 to - 0.39, P = 0.42; OR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.48-1.02, P = 0.06, I = 45%. respectively). However, the results of the subgroup analysis of ASA I-II children showed a quicker onset time in dexmedetomidine-midazolam group than the other sedatives (WMD=-3.08; 95% CI: -4.66 to - 1.49, P = 0.0001, I = 30%).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group, dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam group provided higher sedation success rates and caused a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting in completing examinations, indicating a prospective outpatient clinical application for procedural sedation.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Midazolam; Child; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38907338
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02570-1 -
Medicine Jun 2024No meta-analysis has holistically analyzed and summarized the therapeutic efficacy and safety of albiglutide in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This meta-analysis addresses this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
No meta-analysis has holistically analyzed and summarized the therapeutic efficacy and safety of albiglutide in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This meta-analysis addresses this knowledge gap.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials involving patients with T2D receiving albiglutide in the intervention arm and either a placebo or an active comparator in the control arm were searched through electronic databases. The primary outcome was the change from baseline (CFB) in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c); secondary outcomes included CFB in fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and adverse events (AE).
RESULTS
From 443 initially screened articles, data from 12 randomized controlled trials involving 6423 subjects were analyzed. Albiglutide, at both doses, outperformed placebo in terms of HbA1c reductions (for albiglutide 30 mg: mean differences -1.04%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.37--0.72], P < .00001, I2 = 89%; and for albiglutide 50 mg: mean differences -1.10%, 95% CI [-1.45--0.75], P < .00001, I2 = 90%). Higher proportions of subjects achieved HbA1c < 7% in the albiglutide arm than in placebo (for albiglutide 30 mg: odds ratio 6.26, 95% CI [2.50-15.70], P < .0001, I2 = 82%; and for albiglutide 50 mg: odds ratio 5.57, 95% CI [2.25-13.80], P = .0002, I2 = 84%). Albiglutide had glycemic efficacy comparable to other glucose-lowering drugs. CFB in body weight was similar with albiglutide and placebo. AE profile, including gastrointestinal AE, was identical with albiglutide and placebo, except for higher drug-related AE and injection-site reaction with albiglutide.
CONCLUSION
Albiglutide provides reassuring data on good glycemic efficacy, tolerability, and safety over an extended period of clinical use in patients with T2D. Albiglutide 30 mg has comparable efficacy and safety profiles to albiglutide 50 mg.
Topics: Humans; Blood Glucose; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Glycated Hemoglobin; Hypoglycemic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38905435
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038568 -
PloS One 2024This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in the treatment of patients with RA. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of JAK inhibitors in the treatment of patients with RA.
METHODS
The databases CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, CBM, and PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), all from the time of database creation to April 2024. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (using Review Manager-5.3 software) were independently performed by at least two authors. The network meta-analysis was conducted using R 4.1.3 software. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022370444.
RESULTS
Thirty-three RCTs included 15,961 patients The experimental groups involved six JAK inhibitors (filgotinib, tofacitinib, decernotinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib and peficitinib) and 12 interventions (different doses of the six JAK inhibitors), and the control group involved adalimumab (ADA) and placebo. Compared with placebo, all JAK inhibitors showed a significant increase in efficacy measures (ACR20/50/70). Compared with ADA, only tofacitinib, low-dose decernotinib, and high-dose peficitinib showed a significant increase in ACR20/50/70. Decernotinib ranked first in the SUCRA ranking of ACR20/50/70. In terms of safety indicators, only those differences between low-dose filgotinib and high-dose upadacitinib, low-dose tofacitinib and high-dose upadacitinib were statistically significant. Low-dose filgotinib ranked first in the SUCRA ranking with adverse events as safety indicators. Only the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib ranked higher among different SUCRA rankings.
CONCLUSION
Six JAK inhibitors have better efficacy than placebo. The superior efficacy of decernotinib and safety of low-dose filgotinib can be found in the SUCRA. However, there are no significant differences in safety between the different JAK inhibitors. Head-to-head trials, directly comparing one against each other, are required to provide more certain evidence.
Topics: Humans; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Bayes Theorem; Pyrimidines; Piperidines; Network Meta-Analysis; Azetidines; Purines; Pyrroles; Pyrazoles; Sulfonamides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Heterocyclic Compounds, 2-Ring; Niacinamide; Benzamides; Heterocyclic Compounds, 3-Ring; Antirheumatic Agents; Triazoles; Adamantane; Pyridines; Valine
PubMed: 38905267
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305621 -
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology 2024Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) are recommended for erosive esophagitis (EE), with good safety and tolerance. However, it... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) and potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) are recommended for erosive esophagitis (EE), with good safety and tolerance. However, it is unclear which is the best treatment option for EE.
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of P-CABs and PPIs for healing EE patients, seeking an appropriate treatment choice in the 4- or 8-week treatment and standard or double dose.
DESIGN
A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES AND METHODS
Relevant databases were searched to collect randomized controlled trials of PPIs and P-CABs in the treatment of EE up to 31 May 2023. Studies on standard or double-dose PPIs or P-CABs which were published in English and assessed 4- or 8-week healing effects in EE were included. A network meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of the treatments under the frequentist framework. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses of patients with different baseline EE were also conducted.
RESULTS
In all, 34 studies involving 25,054 patients and 9 PPIs, 6 P-CABs, or placebo treatment interventions were included. The pooled 4-week healing rate was significantly statistically lower than the pooled 8-week healing rate for most treatments. Besides, the higher healing rate of double-dose treatment than standard-dose treatment was not observed in the initial treatment of most drugs. The main analysis only included studies conducted for both patients with and without severe EE at baseline, and the proportion of severe EE included in the study was >10%, Keverprazan 20 mg qd ranked best with a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of 84.7, followed by Ilaprazole 10 mg qd with a SUCRA value of 82.0, for the healing rate at 8 weeks. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were robust. Subgroup analysis showed that most P-CABs had higher healing rates than PPIs, particularly for patients with severe EE. And the healing rate of Keverprazan 20 mg qd at 8 weeks ranked best in the subgroup without or with severe EE at baseline.
CONCLUSION
This study showed that an 8-week treatment seemed more effective than the 4-week treatment for healing EE patients. The healing effect of Keverprazan (20 mg qd) ranked best in 8-week treatment, for both severe and non-severe EE patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The study protocol was registered with INPLASY (registration number INPLASY2023120053).
PubMed: 38903448
DOI: 10.1177/17562848241251567 -
BMC Public Health Jun 2024Acute HIV infection during pregnancy and in the postpartum period increases the risk of vertical transmission. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute HIV infection during pregnancy and in the postpartum period increases the risk of vertical transmission. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended preexposure prophylaxis for pregnant and postpartum women at risk of acquiring HIV. However, there are significant gaps between the actual practice and the ideal goal of preexposure prophylaxis implementation among pregnant and postpartum women. Therefore, it is important to determine what influences women's implementation of preexposure prophylaxis during pregnancy and in the postpartum period. This review aims to aggregate barriers and facilitators to preexposure prophylaxis implementation among pregnant and postpartum women.
METHODS
A range of electronic databases, including PubMed, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Embase, and Web of Science, were searched for potentially relevant qualitative studies. The search period extended from the establishment of the databases to March 16, 2023. This review used the ENTREQ (Enhancing transparency in reporting of qualitative research synthesis) statement to guide the design and reporting of qualitative synthesis. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. The JBI meta-aggregation method was applied for guiding the data extraction, and the JBI ConQual method was applied for guiding the evaluation of the level of evidence for the synthesis.
RESULTS
Of retrieved 2042 studies, 12 met the inclusion criteria. The total population sample included 447 participants, including 231 pregnant and postpartum women, 21 male partners, 75 healthcare providers (HCPs)/healthcare workers (HCWs), 18 policymakers, 37 mothers, and 65 women of childbearing age. A total of 149 findings with credibility ratings of "unequivocal" or "equivocal" were included in this meta-synthesis. Barriers and facilitators to preexposure prophylaxis implementation were coded into seven categories, including three facilitator categories: perceived benefits, maintaining relationships with partners, and external support, and four barriers: medication-related barriers, stigma, barriers at the level of providers and facilities, and biases in risk perception.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-synthesis aggregated the barriers and facilitators of preexposure prophylaxis implementation among pregnant and postpartum women. We aggregated several barriers to maternal preexposure prophylaxis implementation, including medication-related factors, stigma, barriers at the level of providers and facilities, and risk perception biases. Therefore, intervention measures for improving preexposure prophylaxis services can be developed based on these points.
PROSPERO NUMBER
CRD42023412631.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis; HIV Infections; Postpartum Period; Qualitative Research; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Anti-HIV Agents; Adult; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical
PubMed: 38902766
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-19168-4