HIV PreventionNCT06394323
Supporting Oral Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Decision Making Among Pregnant Women in Lilongwe, Malawi
A study testing Behavioral: My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice) in people with HIV Prevention, run by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill at 1 site in Malawi.
Trial summary
Purpose: The overall objective of this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention to support personally appropriate decision making about PrEP use during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- HIV Prevention
- What is being tested?
- Behavioral: My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice)
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine, Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 132 participants
- Where
- 1 siteMalawi
- Study dates
- 6 Aug 2024to 4 Mar 2025
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age 18 or older
- Documented pregnancy by urine pregnancy test or physical exam
- Documented negative HIV status within the past three months
- Identified factor(s) for elevated risk for HIV acquisition per PrEP national eligibility guidelines
- Willingness to remain in the study site's catchment area over the course of study follow-up and to comply with visit schedule
- Ability and willingness to provide informed consent
Who cannot join
- Positive HIV test at time of screening
- No identified HIV risk factors per national PrEP guidelines
- Risk for intimate partner violence or social harms as a result of participation, in the judgement of the study personnel
- Investigators will also conduct interviews with male partners and study staff to assess exploratory qualitative outcomes. All study staff will be eligible to participate in an interview. Male partners will be eligible to participate if they meet the following criteria:
- Referred by a study participant as her romantic partner
- Age 18 or older
- Able and willing to provide informed consent
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: UNCPM 22323 - Supporting Oral Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Decision Making Among Pregnant Women in Lilongwe, Malawi: a Pilot Study
Purpose: The overall objective of this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention to support personally appropriate decision making about PrEP use during pregnancy and breastfeeding.
Participants: The primary population to be recruited for this study is HIV-negative pregnant women. For qualitative data collection only, investigators will also recruit male partners of these participants, and PrEP counselors and health care workers. 100 HIV-negative pregnant women will be recruited to participate in the pilot study. A subset of these participants will participate in qualitative interviews. Up to 20 male partners and up to 15 study staff will be recruited to participate in qualitative in-depth interviews.
Procedures (methods): 100 women will be randomized to receive either the SDM intervention addressing daily oral PrEP and alternative HIV prevention methods (condoms), or standard of care counselling addressing the same prevention methods. Investigators will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the intervention and associated study procedures. Women expressing interest in oral PrEP will be referred to government PrEP services.
Read the detailed description
Study design:
This is a pilot feasibility study of a shared decision making (SDM) intervention for pregnant women considering PrEP. 100 women will be randomized to receive either the SDM intervention addressing daily oral PrEP and alternative HIV prevention methods (condoms), or standard of care counselling addressing the same prevention methods. Investigators will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the intervention and associated study procedures. Women expressing interest in oral PrEP will be referred to government PrEP services.
Study intervention (intervention arm):
The study intervention, My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice), is a counselor-delivered shared decision-making approach for pregnant women considering PrEP. The intervention counseling will be delivered by trained study staff with a background in psychosocial counseling. The intervention consists of counseling facilitated by a SDM tool. The woman's partner may be present depending on her preference. It begins with a review of HIV risk in pregnancy/breastfeeding including discussion of population-specific risk factors which may apply to the participant. After understanding participant HIV risk and desire for HIV protection, the counselor presents HIV prevention options including oral PrEP, and internal and external condoms (discussing attributes and potential advantages and disadvantages of each method). This is followed by a values clarification exercise to identify which features of the competing options matter most to the participant (product attributes and personal and interpersonal implications of each method). The counselor reviews information about these valued features for each offered method. This information and checks to understand and address any unmet participant decision support needs serve as the basis for structured deliberation to collaboratively identify participant preferred method(s). The participant may defer or decline the decision and may request a follow-up counseling visit to take more time to consider her preference or return with a partner or other supporter. If and when a decision is made, the counselor provides post-decision counseling including adherence counseling and disclosure counseling if desired.
Standard of care (control arm):
Participants randomized to the control arm will PrEP counseling as based on the current standard of care (SOC). The SOC counseling will be delivered by a trained study staff member. The SOC counselor PrEP counseling according to national guidelines.Per current guidelines, the SOC counseling may include the following elements: An HIV risk assessment according to PrEP eligibility criteria; discussion of a combination prevention approach (PrEP and condoms) and risk reduction strategies. The women will receive comprehensive education on both the advantages and limitations of PrEP, including guidance on managing potential side effects. Subsequently, the counselor will assess the woman's eligibility, willingness, and readiness to start using PrEP.
Participants choosing oral PrEP during the counselling session in either intervention or comparison arm will receive an assisted referral to government PrEP services at the study site to initiate their selected PrEP method per national guidelines. Initiation of oral PrEP (i.e., receipt of prescription) will be confirmed through clinic or pharmacy records, as well as information on reasons for non-initiation if applicable.
Follow-up:
Participants will complete follow-up visits at month 1, month 2, and month 3. Study visits will be scheduled to align with antenatal care (ANC)/pharmacy visits whenever possible to minimize the number of trips needed at the clinic.
Interviewer-administered questionnaires will be completed at the month 1 and month 3 follow-up visits. Questionnaires will assess study outcomes and associated social and behavioural measures to contextualize understanding of primary study outcomes. A subset of participants will complete in-depth qualitative interviews at month 1. Interviews will provide additional understanding of participant experiences with the intervention and experience using PrEP (if applicable).
At each follow-up visit, women who have chosen oral PrEP will undergo adherence assessment through self-report and pill counts. Furthermore, investigators will collect dried blood spots (DBS) at month 2 to assess adherence among all oral PrEP users (see below).
Biological specimen collection and testing:
To assess quantify drug concentrations to assess PrEP adherence among participants taking up oral PrEP, a participant blood specimen will be collected via venipuncture at the for applicable participants (those using oral PrEP). This specimen will be used to create a dried blood spot (DBS) specimen at the local designated laboratory, prior to storage and shipment to the reference pharmacology laboratory for testing.
All samples will be obtained from study participants by trained study staff according to approved standard operating procedures. All samples will be processed according to the assay manufacturers' specifications. Specimens will be transported, processed, and temporarily housed at UNC Project Malawi (UNCPM) (Lilongwe, Malawi) and shipped to University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill for analysis. All laboratory testing will be performed by trained staff using standard operating procedures and according to specific assay manufacturers' specifications.
- Conditions
- HIV Prevention
- Being tested
- Behavioral: My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice)
- Keywords
- PrEP in pregnancy and breastfeeding
- Medical subject headings
- Breast Feeding
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Behavioral: My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice)Behavioural
My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice), is a counselor-delivered shared decision-making approach for pregnant women considering PrEP
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice) | Experimental | The MyChoice intervention consists of PrEP shared decision-making counseling delivered by a trained counselor. It begins with a review of HIV risk in pregnancy/breastfeeding including discussion of population-specific risk factors which may apply to the participant. Next, the counselor presents HIV prevention options including daily oral PrEP and internal and external condoms (discussing attributes and potential advantages and disadvantages of each method). This is followed by a values clarification exercise to identify which features of the competing options matter most to the participant (product attributes and personal and interpersonal implications of each method). The counselor reviews information about these valued features for each offered method. This information and checks to understand and address any unmet participant decision support needs serve as the basis for structured deliberation to collaboratively identify participant preferred method(s). Receives: Behavioral: Behavioral: My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice) |
| Standard of care (control arm) | Active comparator | Participants randomized to the control arm will receive PrEP counseling as based on the current standard of care (SOC). The SOC counseling will be delivered by a trained study staff member. The SOC counselor PrEP counseling according to national guidelines. Control arm participants will receive comprehensive education on both the advantages and limitations of oral PrEP, including guidance on potential side effects. The SOC counselor will assess the woman's eligibility, willingness, and readiness to start using PrEP. Receives: Behavioral: Behavioral: My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice) |
| Male Partner In-Depth Interviews | No intervention | Male partners of a subset of women enrolled in the study completed qualitative in-depth interviews. Each male partner completed a single in-depth interview conducted by a trained interviewer using a semi-structured interview guide including topics related to their involvement in the woman's PrEP decision making, attitudes towards women's use of PrEP, role supporting women's use of PrEP, and impact of women's use of PrEP on their use of antiretroviral therapy (if applicable). |
| Clinician and Counselor In-Depth Interviews | No intervention | Study staff including intervention counselors and clinicians completed qualitative in-depth interviews. Each staff member completed a single in-depth interview conducted by a trained interviewer using a semi-structured interview guide including topics related to their impressions of the study counseling, perceptions of participants' decision making regarding PrEP use, opinions regarding future implementation of the study intervention, and experiences with study procedures. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Mean Acceptability of Intervention (AIM) Scale Score
Intervention acceptability was defined as the extent to which participants perceived the intervention to be agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory. Acceptability was assessed through participant self-report using a validated 4-item scale (AIM). This scale measures how agreeable and satisfactory women find the intervention (responses rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1="Completely Disagree" to 5="Completely Agree"). For each participant at each timepoint, a mean AIM scale score was calculated ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate greater acceptability. Individuals' mean AIM scale scores were averaged at each timepoint, and a 95% confidence interval around the mean of means was calculated using the common standard error.
Measured: enrollment visit (month 0), month 2 follow up visit
Mean Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) Scale Score
Intervention appropriateness was defined as the perceived relevance and usefulness of the intervention to support decision making about HIV prevention methods. Appropriateness was assessed through self-report using a validated 4-item scale (IAM) to measure women's perceptions of its relevance and usefulness (responses rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1="Completely Disagree" to 5="Completely Agree"). For each participant at each timepoint, a mean IAM scale score was calculated ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate greater appropriateness. Individuals' mean IAM scale scores were averaged at each timepoint, and a 95% confidence interval around the mean of means was calculated using the common standard error.
Measured: enrollment visit (month 0), month 2 follow up visit
Mean Feasibility Intervention Measure (FIM) Scale Score
Intervention feasibility was defined as extent to which the intervention is perceived to be feasible or practical. Feasibility was assessed through self-report using a validated 4-item scale (FIM) to measure women's perceptions of its practicability and ease of use (responses rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1="Completely Disagree" to 1="Completely Agree"). For each participant at month 0, a mean FIM scale score was calculated ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate greater feasibility. Individuals' mean FIM scale scores were averaged, and a 95% confidence interval around the mean of means was calculated using the common standard error.
Measured: enrollment visit (month 0)
Secondary outcomes (1)
Mean Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) Score
A validated scale (DCS) was utilized to assess participants' perceptions decisional conflict regarding the decision whether to use PrEP following receipt of MyChoice or SOC counseling. The 16 items in the scale assess these perceptions by asking participants to rate statements regarding their perceived level of uncertainty, satisfaction, clarity of personal values, and support for decision-making. Responses are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0="Strongly agree" to 4="Strongly Disagree". DCS scores range from 0 to 100 points (mean item rating multiplied by 25), with higher scores indicating a higher level of decisional conflict. At month 0 after the intervention, individuals' mean DCS scores were averaged, and a 95% confidence interval around the mean of means was calculated using the common standard error. Only participants that had one or more completed items of the DCS were included.
Measured: enrollment visit (month 0)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted1 May 2024
- Study start6 Aug 2024
- Primary completion7 Feb 2025
- Study completion4 Mar 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for HIV PreventionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 132 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Lauren Hill, PhD, MSPH, Principal investigator, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06394323
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 23-3102
- Other IDs
- K01MH121186
- Status last verified
- Jan 2026
- First submitted
- 26 Apr 2024
- Last updated
- 2 Feb 2026
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Deidentified individual data that supports the results will be shared beginning 9 to 36 months following publication provided the investigator who proposes to use the data has approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB), Independent Ethics Committee (IEC), or Research Ethics Board (REB), as applicable, and executes a data use/sharing agreement with UNC.
Publications
Saidi F, Welch S, Phanga T, Sulpizio C, Paile L, Ngo'ma D, Tsidya M, Chindebvu M, Nkhoma G, Nkhalamba L, Kaliati I, Mkochi N, Chakala H, Kumwenda W, Bula A, Winner P, Munthali T, Nyamaizi A, Keys J, Maman S, Pearce L, Golin C, Chi BH, Hill LM. Supporting Oral and Long-Acting HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Decision-Making Among Pregnant Women (MyChoice Intervention): Protocol for 2 Pilot Randomized Controlled Trials. JMIR Res Protoc. 2025 Nov 13;14:e76442. doi: 10.2196/76442.
PubMed 41232107
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Feb 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- UNCPM 22323 - Supporting Oral Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Decision Making Among Pregnant Women in Lilongwe, Malawi: a Pilot Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06394323
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 23-3102
- Conditions
- HIV Prevention
- Keywords
- PrEP in pregnancy and breastfeeding
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 132 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of North Carolina, Chapel HillUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
- Study start
- 6 Aug 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 7 Feb 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 4 Mar 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 May 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 24 Dec 2025
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Purpose: The overall objective of this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention to support personally appropriate decision making about PrEP use during pregnancy and breastfeeding.
Participants: The primary population to be recruited for this study is HIV-negative pregnant women. For qualitative data collection only, investigators will also recruit male partners of these participants, and PrEP counselors and health care workers. 100 HIV-negative pregnant women will be recruited to participate in the pilot study. A subset of these participants will participate in qualitative interviews. Up to 20 male partners and up to 15 study staff will be recruited to participate in qualitative in-depth interviews.
Procedures (methods): 100 women will be randomized to receive either the SDM intervention addressing daily oral PrEP and alternative HIV prevention methods (condoms), or standard of care counselling addressing the same prevention methods. Investigators will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the intervention and associated study procedures. Women expressing interest in oral PrEP will be referred to government PrEP services.
Detailed description
Study design:
This is a pilot feasibility study of a shared decision making (SDM) intervention for pregnant women considering PrEP. 100 women will be randomized to receive either the SDM intervention addressing daily oral PrEP and alternative HIV prevention methods (condoms), or standard of care counselling addressing the same prevention methods. Investigators will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the intervention and associated study procedures. Women expressing interest in oral PrEP will be referred to government PrEP services.
Study intervention (intervention arm):
The study intervention, My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice), is a counselor-delivered shared decision-making approach for pregnant women considering PrEP. The intervention counseling will be delivered by trained study staff with a background in psychosocial counseling. The intervention consists of counseling facilitated by a SDM tool. The woman's partner may be present depending on her preference. It begins with a review of HIV risk in pregnancy/breastfeeding including discussion of population-specific risk factors which may apply to the participant. After understanding participant HIV risk and desire for HIV protection, the counselor presents HIV prevention options including oral PrEP, and internal and external condoms (discussing attributes and potential advantages and disadvantages of each method). This is followed by a values clarification exercise to identify which features of the competing options matter most to the participant (product attributes and personal and interpersonal implications of each method). The counselor reviews information about these valued features for each offered method. This information and checks to understand and address any unmet participant decision support needs serve as the basis for structured deliberation to collaboratively identify participant preferred method(s). The participant may defer or decline the decision and may request a follow-up counseling visit to take more time to consider her preference or return with a partner or other supporter. If and when a decision is made, the counselor provides post-decision counseling including adherence counseling and disclosure counseling if desired.
Standard of care (control arm):
Participants randomized to the control arm will PrEP counseling as based on the current standard of care (SOC). The SOC counseling will be delivered by a trained study staff member. The SOC counselor PrEP counseling according to national guidelines.Per current guidelines, the SOC counseling may include the following elements: An HIV risk assessment according to PrEP eligibility criteria; discussion of a combination prevention approach (PrEP and condoms) and risk reduction strategies. The women will receive comprehensive education on both the advantages and limitations of PrEP, including guidance on managing potential side effects. Subsequently, the counselor will assess the woman's eligibility, willingness, and readiness to start using PrEP.
Participants choosing oral PrEP during the counselling session in either intervention or comparison arm will receive an assisted referral to government PrEP services at the study site to initiate their selected PrEP method per national guidelines. Initiation of oral PrEP (i.e., receipt of prescription) will be confirmed through clinic or pharmacy records, as well as information on reasons for non-initiation if applicable.
Follow-up:
Participants will complete follow-up visits at month 1, month 2, and month 3. Study visits will be scheduled to align with antenatal care (ANC)/pharmacy visits whenever possible to minimize the number of trips needed at the clinic.
Interviewer-administered questionnaires will be completed at the month 1 and month 3 follow-up visits. Questionnaires will assess study outcomes and associated social and behavioural measures to contextualize understanding of primary study outcomes. A subset of participants will complete in-depth qualitative interviews at month 1. Interviews will provide additional understanding of participant experiences with the intervention and experience using PrEP (if applicable).
At each follow-up visit, women who have chosen oral PrEP will undergo adherence assessment through self-report and pill counts. Furthermore, investigators will collect dried blood spots (DBS) at month 2 to assess adherence among all oral PrEP users (see below).
Biological specimen collection and testing:
To assess quantify drug concentrations to assess PrEP adherence among participants taking up oral PrEP, a participant blood specimen will be collected via venipuncture at the for applicable participants (those using oral PrEP). This specimen will be used to create a dried blood spot (DBS) specimen at the local designated laboratory, prior to storage and shipment to the reference pharmacology laboratory for testing.
All samples will be obtained from study participants by trained study staff according to approved standard operating procedures. All samples will be processed according to the assay manufacturers' specifications. Specimens will be transported, processed, and temporarily housed at UNC Project Malawi (UNCPM) (Lilongwe, Malawi) and shipped to University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill for analysis. All laboratory testing will be performed by trained staff using standard operating procedures and according to specific assay manufacturers' specifications.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice) | Experimental | Behavioral: Behavioral: My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice)The MyChoice intervention consists of PrEP shared decision-making counseling delivered by a trained counselor. It begins with a review of HIV risk in pregnancy/breastfeeding including discussion of population-specific risk factors which may apply to the participant. Next, the counselor presents HIV prevention options including daily oral PrEP and internal and external condoms (discussing attributes and potential advantages and disadvantages of each method). This is followed by a values clarification exercise to identify which features of the competing options matter most to the participant (product attributes and personal and interpersonal implications of each method). The counselor reviews information about these valued features for each offered method. This information and checks to understand and address any unmet participant decision support needs serve as the basis for structured deliberation to collaboratively identify participant preferred method(s). |
| Standard of care (control arm) | Active comparator | Behavioral: Behavioral: My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice)Participants randomized to the control arm will receive PrEP counseling as based on the current standard of care (SOC). The SOC counseling will be delivered by a trained study staff member. The SOC counselor PrEP counseling according to national guidelines. Control arm participants will receive comprehensive education on both the advantages and limitations of oral PrEP, including guidance on potential side effects. The SOC counselor will assess the woman's eligibility, willingness, and readiness to start using PrEP. |
| Male Partner In-Depth Interviews | No intervention | –Male partners of a subset of women enrolled in the study completed qualitative in-depth interviews. Each male partner completed a single in-depth interview conducted by a trained interviewer using a semi-structured interview guide including topics related to their involvement in the woman's PrEP decision making, attitudes towards women's use of PrEP, role supporting women's use of PrEP, and impact of women's use of PrEP on their use of antiretroviral therapy (if applicable). |
| Clinician and Counselor In-Depth Interviews | No intervention | –Study staff including intervention counselors and clinicians completed qualitative in-depth interviews. Each staff member completed a single in-depth interview conducted by a trained interviewer using a semi-structured interview guide including topics related to their impressions of the study counseling, perceptions of participants' decision making regarding PrEP use, opinions regarding future implementation of the study intervention, and experiences with study procedures. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Age 18 or older
- Documented pregnancy by urine pregnancy test or physical exam
- Documented negative HIV status within the past three months
- Identified factor(s) for elevated risk for HIV acquisition per PrEP national eligibility guidelines
- Willingness to remain in the study site's catchment area over the course of study follow-up and to comply with visit schedule
Key exclusion criteria (7 listed)
- Positive HIV test at time of screening
- No identified HIV risk factors per national PrEP guidelines
- Risk for intimate partner violence or social harms as a result of participation, in the judgement of the study personnel
- Investigators will also conduct interviews with male partners and study staff to assess exploratory qualitative outcomes. All study staff will be eligible to participate in an interview. Male partners will be eligible to participate if they meet the following criteria:
- Referred by a study participant as her romantic partner
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Behavioral: My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice)My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice), is a counselor-delivered shared decision-making approach for pregnant women considering PrEP | Behavioural | My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice), Standard of care (control arm) |
Primary outcome
Mean Acceptability of Intervention (AIM) Scale Score
Time frame: enrollment visit (month 0), month 2 follow up visit
Intervention acceptability was defined as the extent to which participants perceived the intervention to be agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory. Acceptability was assessed through participant self-report using a validated 4-item scale (AIM). This scale measures how agreeable and satisfactory women find the intervention (responses rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1="Completely Disagree" to 5="Completely Agree"). For each participant at each timepoint, a mean AIM scale score was calculated ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate greater acceptability. Individuals' mean AIM scale scores were averaged at each timepoint, and a 95% confidence interval around the mean of means was calculated using the common standard error.
Mean Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) Scale Score
Time frame: enrollment visit (month 0), month 2 follow up visit
Intervention appropriateness was defined as the perceived relevance and usefulness of the intervention to support decision making about HIV prevention methods. Appropriateness was assessed through self-report using a validated 4-item scale (IAM) to measure women's perceptions of its relevance and usefulness (responses rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1="Completely Disagree" to 5="Completely Agree"). For each participant at each timepoint, a mean IAM scale score was calculated ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate greater appropriateness. Individuals' mean IAM scale scores were averaged at each timepoint, and a 95% confidence interval around the mean of means was calculated using the common standard error.
Mean Feasibility Intervention Measure (FIM) Scale Score
Time frame: enrollment visit (month 0)
Intervention feasibility was defined as extent to which the intervention is perceived to be feasible or practical. Feasibility was assessed through self-report using a validated 4-item scale (FIM) to measure women's perceptions of its practicability and ease of use (responses rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1="Completely Disagree" to 1="Completely Agree"). For each participant at month 0, a mean FIM scale score was calculated ranging from 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate greater feasibility. Individuals' mean FIM scale scores were averaged, and a 95% confidence interval around the mean of means was calculated using the common standard error.
1 secondary outcome
Mean Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) Score
Time frame: enrollment visit (month 0)
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Feb 2026.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41232107Saidi F, Welch S, Phanga T, Sulpizio C, Paile L, Ngo'ma D, Tsidya M, Chindebvu M, Nkhoma G, Nkhalamba L, Kaliati I, Mkochi N, Chakala H, Kumwenda W, Bula A, Winner P, Munthali T, Nyamaizi A, Keys J, Maman S, Pearce L, Golin C, Chi BH, Hill LM. Supporting Oral and Long-Acting HIV Preexposure Prophylaxis Decision-Making Among Pregnant Women (MyChoice Intervention): Protocol for 2 Pilot Randomized Controlled Trials. JMIR Res Protoc. 2025 Nov 13;14:e76442. doi: 10.2196/76442.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Deidentified individual data that supports the results will be shared beginning 9 to 36 months following publication provided the investigator who proposes to use the data has approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB), Independent Ethics Committee (IEC), or Research Ethics Board (REB), as applicable, and executes a data use/sharing agreement with UNC.
Related trials for HIV Prevention
Not yet recruiting
Evaluating the Healthy Families PrEP Program for Women at Risk for HIV
HIV, Pregnancy
Recruiting
Screen Smart: Using Digital Health to Improve HIV Screening and Prevention
HIV Infections
Active, not recruiting
IGHID 12230 - An Implementation Trial of an Experiential Brief Alcohol Intervention for HIV Prevention
HIV-1-infection, Unhealthy Alcohol Use
RecruitingObservational study
Implementation Study of Lenacapavir Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention
HIV Infections
Active, not recruiting
Implementing PrEP for Women Who Inject Drugs
HIV, Intravenous Substance Abuse
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Lauren Hill, PhD, MSPH principal investigator
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Behavioral: My Choice for HIV Prevention (MyChoice) in people with HIV Prevention, run by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill at 1 site in Malawi.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 7 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Feb 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Malawi. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 24 Dec 2025). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Mean Acceptability of Intervention (AIM) Scale Score (time frame: enrollment visit (month 0), month 2 follow up visit). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06394323, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Feb 2026.