Acceptability Assessment in HIV Prevention and Treatment Intervention and Service Delivery Research: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Analysis
Katrina F. Ortblada b✉, Mandeep Sekhonc d, Liying Wange, Stella Rothf, Ariane van der Strateng h, Jane M. Simonie i, Jennifer Vellozaj
- aPublic Health Science Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA. kortblad@fredhutch.org
- bPublic Health Science Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, 1100 Fairview Ave N, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA
- cCentre for Applied Health and Social Care Research, Kingston University and St Georges University of London, London, UK
- dDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
- eDepartment of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
- fSeattle University, Seattle, USA
- gASTRA Consulting, Kensington, USA
- hCenter for AIDS Prevention Studies, Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA
- iDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
- jDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA
Papers open inside SciRah from the original publisher or repository; SciRah never hosts them.
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.
TL;DRFindings suggest acceptability assessment in recent HIV intervention and service delivery research lacks harmonization and rigor, and offers guidelines for best practices and future research. (Semantic Scholar)