Investigators surveyed 225 clients at Mildmay Hospital and Kajjansi Health Centre IV to assess readiness to start long-acting injectable HIV treatment or prevention. Readiness was operationalized as a preference to initiate immediately or within three months. One hundred eight participants (48.0%) met that criterion. Nearly as many—111 participants (49.3%)—said they wanted more information before deciding. Only six people (2.7%) preferred initiation in six to twelve months. The distribution therefore clustered around immediate or soon initiation versus information-seeking, rather than delayed start.
These descriptive figures framed the analytic work. The authors used modified Poisson regression to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and 95% confidence intervals. Models incorporated an age-by-service-group interaction and separate models tested informational, perceptual and financial predictors while adjusting for service group, age and sex. Logistic marginal standardisation was applied for demographic and expanded age comparisons.
Age and service type showed a statistically significant interaction in models reported by the study team. Among people living with HIV, readiness was especially high in the youngest group: 80.8% of participants aged 15–24 years were ready to start, compared with 34.4% of those aged 25 years or older (aPR 2.35, 95% CI 1.63–3.38). The pattern among PrEP-service clients diverged: 39.2% of 15–24-year-olds and 41.4% of those 25 years or older were ready (aPR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60–1.50). The interaction term had p=0.002, indicating a differing age effect by service group.
The study team presented these comparisons without reporting additional subgroup sizes beyond those proportions. The cross-sectional design captured readiness at a single point in time; it did not assess subsequent initiation, retention, or long-term outcomes following stated readiness.
Separate adjusted regression models examined modifiable drivers of readiness. Information delivered by clinic staff correlated with higher readiness (aPR 1.94, 95% CI 1.42–2.66). Belief that the injectable option was more effective also related to readiness (aPR 2.00, 95% CI 1.43–2.80). The investigators reported an especially strong association for a one-point increase in the benefit score (aPR 3.27, 95% CI 2.36–4.55), indicating that perceived benefits strongly track with willingness to start.
Conversely, higher levels of concern reduced the prevalence of readiness; a one-point increase in the concern score associated with lower readiness (aPR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60–0.80). Financial strain showed a negative association as well: participants reporting financial difficulty sometimes or more often had lower readiness (aPR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48–0.96). The data therefore connect informational, perceptual and economic domains to the decision to start injectable options.
When investigators asked what conditions would need to be met before participants accepted injectable HIV treatment or prevention, the leading requirement across service and readiness groups was fewer side effects. The study team observed that safety concerns—expressed as side-effect expectations—were the dominant practical barrier. Other conditions brought up by participants included appointment flexibility, privacy considerations and affordability, though the article prioritised fewer side effects as the primary acceptance threshold.
The source did not provide granular item-level frequencies for every conditional preference in the manuscript text; it emphasised the rank ordering and the centrality of safety-related concerns.
Based on the observed readiness patterns and associated factors, the authors recommended that programmes assess intended initiation timing in addition to simple willingness metrics. They suggested that counselling and service planning address safety information, ensure appointment flexibility, protect client privacy and consider affordability. Clinic staff-delivered information emerged as a tangible lever for increasing readiness, according to adjusted model results.
The study has methodological bounds that the authors reported. It was cross-sectional, limiting causal inference and preventing measurement of actual uptake or continuation after stated readiness. The sample comprised 225 clients from two facilities in central Uganda; the authors did not report that these findings are necessarily generalisable beyond the study sites. Participant-level data are not publicly available owing to ethical restrictions; access requires approval from Mildmay Research Centre Uganda and a signed data-use agreement.
Unanswered operational questions remain in the manuscript: the study did not report longer-term initiation or adherence outcomes among those who indicated readiness, nor did it provide implementation details such as staffing models, appointment scheduling protocols, or specific cost estimates for delivering injectable options in these clinics. Those implementation metrics will require additional prospective and operational research to guide scale-up.