Table 2.

Main findings from HIV prevention publications (n=9) included in our review (2012–2019)

Citation	Results
Eisingerich et al. (2012)	A bimonthly injection was preferred route of administration, followed by monthly arm injection. Daily or intermittent regimens were least preferred across the sample. HIV testing every six months was preferred to monthly. Time spent obtaining PrEP and frequency of PrEP pickup were least influential. These trends, however, varied based on sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., gender, risk group, and region).
Kinsler et al. (2012)	Efficacy had the greatest influence on RM acceptability, with all other attributes except dosage also contributing to acceptability. Attributes’ impact on RM acceptability varied based on region (e.g., side effects, prescription, dosage).
Cameron et al. (2013)	Biomedical attributes (efficacy, risk of vaccine induced seropositivity, side effects and duration of protection) were most important attributes to respondents.
Wheelock et al. (2013)	Frequency of HIV testing was the most influential attribute of the PrEP program, followed by time it would take to uptake PrEP. Daily pill and bimonthly injection were preferred over pill pre/post sex or monthly injection in the arm.
Newman et al. (2016)	Efficacy, followed by cross-clade protection, side effects and duration of protection had the greatest contribution to vaccine acceptability. Route of administration, costs, and dose number did not contribute to vaccine acceptability.
Tang et al. (2016)	Efficacy and side effects were most influential in RM acceptability, followed by a prescription requirement. Most acceptable scenario was a RM with 90% effectiveness, used before and after sex, without side effects, costing about US $.30, used a single-use applicator and did not require a prescription.
Dubov et al. (2018)	PrEP affordability and delivery were the two influential attributes in the sample. In latent class analyses, however, five groups emerged with each profile assigning different values to the products’ attributes.
Shrestha et al. (2018)	The most acceptable scenario had lower cost (covered by insurance), required daily dosing, was 95% effective, had no side effects, was prescribed at a HIV clinic, and required testing every 6 months. Cost was the most important attribute to participants, followed by efficacy. Side effects, dosing, treatment location and HIV testing needed were also moderately influential.
Dubov et al. (2019)	Costs is most important factor across attributes. Daily oral PrEP was the preferred dosing strategy. In latent class analyses, however, five groups emerged with each profile weighing daily, intermittent, and injectable PrEP differently.