A community‐based dynamic choice model for HIV prevention improves PrEP and PEP coverage in rural Uganda and Kenya: a cluster randomized trial

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionOptimizing HIV prevention may require structured approaches for providing client‐centred choices as well as community‐based entry points and delivery. We evaluated the effect of a dynamic choice model for HIV prevention, delivered by community health workers (CHWs) with clinician support, on the use of biomedical prevention among persons at risk of HIV in rural East Africa.MethodsWe conducted a cluster randomized trial among persons (≥15 years) with current or anticipated HIV risk in 16 villages in Uganda and Kenya (SEARCH; NCT04810650). The intervention was a client‐centred HIV prevention model, including (1) structured client choice of product (pre‐exposure prophylaxis [PrEP] or post‐exposure prophylaxis [PEP]), service location (clinic or out‐of‐clinic) and HIV testing modality (self‐test or rapid test), with the ability to switch over time; (2) a structured assessment of patient barriers and development of a personalized support plan; and (3) phone access to a clinician 24/7. The intervention was delivered by CHWs and supported by clinicians who oversaw PrEP and PEP initiation and monitoring. Participants in control villages were referred to local health facilities for HIV prevention services, delivered by Ministry of Health staff. The primary outcome was biomedical prevention coverage: a proportion of 48‐week follow‐up with self‐reported PrEP or PEP use.ResultsFrom May to July 2021, we enrolled 429 people (212 intervention; 217 control): 57% women and 35% aged 15–24 years. Among intervention participants, 58% chose PrEP and 58% chose PEP at least once over follow‐up; self‐testing increased from 52% (baseline) to 71% (week 48); ≥98% chose out‐of‐facility service delivery. Among 413 (96%) participants with the primary outcome ascertained, average biomedical prevention coverage was 28.0% in the intervention versus 0.5% in the control: a difference of 27.5% (95% CI: 23.0–31.9%, p<0.001). Impact was larger during periods of self‐reported HIV risk: 36.6% coverage in intervention versus 0.9% in control, a difference of 35.7% (95% CI: 27.5–43.9, p<0.001). Intervention effects were seen across subgroups defined by sex, age group and alcohol use.ConclusionsA client‐centred dynamic choice HIV prevention intervention, including the option to switch between products and CHW‐based delivery in the community, increased biomedical prevention coverage by 27.5%. However, substantial person‐time at risk of HIV remained uncovered.