Skip to content

✪ Impact of a stakeholder selected implementation strategy package – fast tracking, provider re-training, and co-location – on PrEP implementation for pregnant women in antenatal care clinics in western Kenya

Authors:

Joseph Sila, Anjuli Dawn Wagner, Felix Abuna, Julia C Dettinger, Ben Odhiambo, Nancy Ngumbau, George Oketch, Enock Sifuna, Laurén Gómez, Sarah Hicks, Bryan J. Weiner, Grace John-Stewart & John Kinuthia

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: May 2025

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:

Background

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is recommended for HIV prevention in pregnant and postpartum women at substantial ongoing risk for HIV. In resource-limited settings, there exist gaps in the integration of PrEP into antenatal care.

Methods

We conducted a difference-in-differences analytic approach (3 months pre- and 3 months post) between January 2022 and July 2022 in 8 facilities (4 intervention and 4 comparison) in western Kenya. During the 6-month period, we tested a combination of 2 stakeholder selected implementation strategies – retraining health providers and fast tracking PrEP clients– to improve PrEP delivery. All study facilities dispensed PrEP in the Maternal and Child health clinics (MCH). We evaluated absolute changes in: PrEP penetration, PrEP fidelity, client PrEP knowledge, client satisfaction, and client waiting and service times as outcomes specified a priori while PrEP offer and HIV testing were outcomes specified post hoc. We measured acceptability and appropriateness by providers of the implementation strategies using AIM and IAM respectively.

Results

We observed statistically significant improvements in PrEP penetration and PrEP offer (p < 0.05) and non-significant improvements in fidelity. PrEP penetration increased 6 percent points (p = 0.002), PrEP offer increased nearly 6 percentage points (p = 0.002), and PrEP fidelity increased 4 percentage points (p = 0.202) in intervention vs comparison facilities. Client PrEP knowledge increased 0.45 out of 7 total points (p < 0.001) and PrEP screening increased 13 percentage points (p = 0.001). We observed no significant changes in service time (0.13-min increase; p = 0.249), waiting time (0.03-min decrease; p = 0.796), or client satisfaction (0.04/24 total point decrease; p = 0.849) in intervention vs comparison facilities. HIV testing did not significantly change (7 percentage point decrease, p = 0.305). The implementation strategy bundle was deemed appropriate and acceptable by the providers (appropriateness: 18.5/20; acceptability: 18.5/20). Overall, the implementation strategy bundle was associated with larger increases in implementation outcomes among women receiving a visit other than their first ANC visit, as well as among sites without stockouts of HIV test kits.

Conclusions

A stakeholder-selected implementation strategy bundle that included retraining healthcare workers, fast tracking PrEP clients to reduce waiting time, and PrEP dispensing in MCH improved several implementation outcomes without significantly affecting waiting time or reducing service time.

Contributions to the literature

  • Evidence is sparse on effective implementation strategies that focus on structural- and provider-level barriers to enhance delivery of integrated care in resource-limited settings.
  • Stakeholder-selected strategies are hypothesized to have a better fit to local context and potentially be more effective than externally selected strategies.
    We tested a package of two stakeholder-selected implementation strategies – retraining health providers, fast tracking PrEP clients in a difference-in-differences study in 8 clinics in Kenya.
  • The package was associated with significant improvements in PrEP penetration, PrEP offer, PrEP knowledge, and PrEP screening. It was not associated with significant changes in PrEP fidelity, HIV testing, service time, waiting time, or client satisfaction.
  • The improvement associated with the package was most pronounced among clinics that did not experience substantial stockouts of supplies, suggesting that implementation strategies are not sufficient to overcome gaps in basic resourcing in the presence of critical events.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Comparison of methods to engage diverse stakeholder populations in prioritizing PrEP implementation strategies for testing in resource-limited settings: a cross-sectional study

Authors:

Sarah Hicks, Felix Abuna, Ben Odhiambo, Julia C. Dettinger, Nancy Ngumbau, Laurén Gómez, Joseph Sila, George Oketch, Enock Sifuna, Bryan J. Weiner, Grace C. John-Stewart, John Kinuthia & Anjuli D. Wagner

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: July 2023

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:

Background

There is a lack of consensus about how to prioritize potential implementation strategies for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) delivery. We compared several prioritization methods for their agreement and pragmatism in practice in a resource-limited setting.

Methods

We engaged diverse stakeholders with clinical PrEP delivery and PrEP decision-making experience across 55 facilities in Kenya to prioritize 16 PrEP delivery strategies. We compared four strategy prioritization methods: (1) “past experience surveys” with experienced practitioners reflecting on implementation experience (N = 182); (2 and 3) “pre- and post-small-group ranking” surveys before and after group discussion (N = 44 and 40); (4) “go-zone” quadrant plots of perceived effectiveness vs feasibility. Kendall’s correlation analysis was used to compare strategy prioritization using the four methods. Additionally, participants were requested to group strategies into three bundles with up to four strategies/bundle by phone and online survey.

Results

The strategy ranking correlation was strongest between the pre- and post-small-group rankings (Tau: 0.648; p < 0.001). There was moderate correlation between go-zone plots and post-small-group rankings (Tau: 0.363; p = 0.079) and between past-experience surveys and post-small-group rankings (Tau: 0.385; p = 0.062). For strategy bundling, participants primarily chose bundles of strategies in the order in which they were listed, reflecting option ordering bias. Neither the phone nor online approach was effective in selecting strategy bundles. Participants agreed that the strategy ranking activities conducted during the workshop were useful in prioritizing a final set of strategies.

Conclusions

Both experienced and inexperienced stakeholder participants’ strategy rankings tended to prioritize strategies perceived as feasible. Small group discussions focused on feasibility and effectiveness revealed moderately different priorities than individual rankings. The strategy bundling approach, though less time- and resource-intensive, was not effective. Future research should further compare the relative effectiveness and pragmatism of methodologies to prioritize implementation strategies.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**