Proportion of women who are screened for PrEP / total women receiving antenatal or postnatal services
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 30 | |
| Comparator | 17 |
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 46 | |
| Comparator | 8 |
Last reviewed · How we verify
PrEPARE: PrEP in Pregnancy, Accelerating Reach and Efficiency
NA trial testing PrEP Optimization Interventions in Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis in 1,958 participants. Completed in 31 January 2022.
| Lead sponsor | University of Washington |
|---|---|
| Phase | NA |
| Status | Completed |
| Study type | INTERVENTIONAL |
| Allocation | non randomized |
| Design | parallel |
| Masking | none |
| Primary purpose | health services research |
| Enrollment | 1,958 |
| Start date | 1 May 2021 |
| Primary completion | 30 November 2021 |
| Estimated completion | 31 January 2022 |
| Sites | 8 locations across Kenya |
University of Washington
Eligibility, female only, with Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis or HIV Infections. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.
Per-arm endpoint measurements with 95% confidence intervals where reported. Source: trial results section.
Proportion of women who are screened for PrEP / total women receiving antenatal or postnatal services
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 30 | |
| Comparator | 17 |
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 46 | |
| Comparator | 8 |
Proportion of women who receive all PrEP specific steps in a visit: HIV testing, HIV risk screening, PrEP counseling
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 14 | |
| Comparator | 4 |
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 28 | |
| Comparator | 5 |
Time (minutes) spent receiving services from health care works
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 18 | 12 – 36 |
| Comparator | 16 | 10 – 33 |
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 17 | 11 – 29 |
| Comparator | 14 | 9 – 27.5 |
Time (minutes) spent waiting to receive services
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 49 | 22.5 – 77 |
| Comparator | 37 | 14.5 – 74 |
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 55 | 31 – 80 |
| Comparator | 29 | 14 – 46.5 |
Total on 4 item Acceptability of Intervention Measures (AIM) score, 1 (Completely disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree) Likert scale. The minimum score on the 4 items is 4 points (scoring 1 on each of the 4 items) while the maximum is 20 points (scoring 5 on each of the 4 items). A higher score indicates a better outcome. The sub-scores on each of the 4 items are summed.
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 20.0 | 16.0 – 20.0 |
Total on 4 item Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) score, 1 (Completely disagree) to 5 (Completely Agree) Likert scale. The minimum score on the 4 items is 4 points (scoring 1 on each of the 4 items) while the maximum is 20 points (scoring 5 on each of the 4 items). A higher score indicates a better outcome. The sub-scores on each of the 4 items are summed.
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 19.5 | 16.0 – 20.0 |
Total on 6 item exit survey of clients to assess their satisfaction with services received at the facility, 1 (worse) to 4 (better) scale. The minimum score on the 6 items is 6 points (scoring 1 on each of the 6 items) while the maximum is 24 points (scoring 4 on each of the 6 items). A higher score indicates a better outcome. The sub-scores on each of the 4 items are summed.
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 21.0 | 19.0 – 23.0 |
| Comparator | 23.0 | 20.0 – 23.0 |
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 23.0 | 21.0 – 23.0 |
| Comparator | 23.0 | 20.0 – 24.0 |
Proportion of women who accept PrEP among those offered
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 0 | |
| Comparator | 1 |
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 0 | |
| Comparator | 1 |
Proportion of women who present for a refill among those initially prescribed PrEP
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 1 | |
| Comparator | 1 |
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 1 | |
| Comparator | 2 |
Number of participants with perfect knowledge on PrEP information questions based on content covered in counseling sessions
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 5 | |
| Comparator | 0 |
| Group | Value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| PrEP Optimization Strategies | 56 | |
| Comparator | 5 |
This study tests strategies for improving PrEP implementation in maternal and child health clinics using a difference-in-difference approach.
6 peer-reviewed publications reference this trial (live from Europe PMC):
Verify or expand the search:
Trials testing the same drug.
Currently open trials in the same condition.
Trials by the same sponsor.
Drug Landscape aggregates and links these public records for informational use only. Always verify against the primary source before clinical or regulatory decisions. Canonical URL: https://druglandscape.com/trial/NCT04712994.
Primary sources · FDA · ClinicalTrials.gov · EMA · SEC EDGAR · ChEMBL · Wikidata · full sourcing