# Ensuring People Living with HIV Inform the Future of HIV Treatment in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for a Community-Led Research Agenda

## TL;DR

This paper reviews how people living with HIV in low- and middle-income countries prefer treatment options and service delivery models, and recommends a community-led research agenda to guide future HIV treatment strategies.

## Contribution

The study identifies gaps in HIV treatment preference research and proposes a community-led research agenda to ensure community priorities are central to future evidence generation.

## Key findings

- Only 15 product preference studies included populations from low- and middle-income countries.
- Advocates emphasized the need for research on long-acting HIV products for specific groups like pregnant individuals and key populations.
- Preferences for clinic visit frequency, side effects, and treatment choice were highlighted as important areas for further study.

## Abstract

The HIV treatment landscape in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is rapidly evolving, exemplified by the expansion of differentiated service delivery (DSD) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Long-acting products represent a new frontier that will require a significant redesign of health systems. It is critical to understand service delivery and product preferences of people living with HIV (PLHIV) and ensure evidence generation is guided by community priorities. We conducted a scoping review to identify gaps among preference studies and inform future research. Peer-reviewed articles published from January 2014-May 2022 reporting acceptability or preference data from PLHIV or caregivers for one or more service delivery or product attribute were eligible. Service delivery studies were restricted to LMIC populations while product studies had no geographical restrictions. Based on gaps identified, we consulted advocates to develop community-led research agenda recommendations. Of 6,493 studies identified, 225 studies on service delivery attributes and 47 studies on product preferences were eligible. The most frequently studied delivery models were integration (n = 59) and technology-based interventions (n = 55). Among product literature, only 15 studies included LMIC populations. Consultation with advocates highlighted the need for research on long-acting products, including among pediatric, pregnant, and breastfeeding PLHIV, PLHIV on second-line regimens, and key populations. Consultation also emphasized the need to understand preferences on clinic visit frequency, side effects, and choice. While the preference literature has expanded, gaps remain around long-acting regimens and their delivery. To fill these gaps, the research agenda must be guided by the priorities of communities of PLHIV.