
==== Front
Prev Med Rep
Preventive Medicine Reports
2211-3355

S2211-3355(24)00285-7
10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102870
102870
Short Communication
The HIV prevention decision-making cascade: Integrating behavioural insights into HIV prevention efforts
Humphries Hilton hhumphries@hsrc.ac.za
ab⁎
Knight Lucia cd
Heerden Alastair van ae
a Centre for Community Based Research, Human Sciences Research Council, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
b Department of Psychology, School of Applied Human Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
c Division of Social and Behavioural Sciences, School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
d School of Public Health, Community and Health Sciences, University of the Western Cape, Bellville, South Africa
e SAMRC/WITS Developmental Pathways for Health Research Unit, Department of Paediatrics, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa
⁎ Corresponding author at: 1 Caluza Road, Sweetwaters, Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu Natal 3201, South Africa. hhumphries@hsrc.ac.za
23 8 2024
10 2024
23 8 2024
46 1028708 4 2024
26 7 2024
17 8 2024
© 2024 The Author(s)
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
The syndemic of HIV, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and early pregnancy remain a key challenge to global public health. Decision-making around sexual and reproductive health (SRH) behaviours is critical to ensuring the uptake of biomedical technologies. Drawing from behavioural science theories, we propose a novel conceptual framework—the Decision Cascade—to describe the decision-making process that a user will go through as they navigate these decisions. Analogous to the HIV prevention and treatment cascade, this model describes key steps individuals go through when deciding to use HIV prevention technologies. Each step (being cued/triggered to act, reacting to the behaviour, evaluating the behaviour, assessing the feasibility of acting and the timing and final execution of the action), is influenced by a myriad of individual and socio-cultural factors, shaping the ultimate decision and behaviour outcome in a continual cycle. This framework has applications beyond HIV prevention, extending to other SRH technologies and treatments. By prioritizing human-centered design and understanding user decision-making intricacies, interventions can enhance effectiveness and address the complexities of SRH service uptake across diverse populations. The Decision Cascade framework offers a comprehensive lens to inform intervention design, emphasizing the need for nuanced approaches that resonate with the realities of decision-makers. Adopting such approaches is essential to achieving meaningful impact in HIV prevention and broader SRH initiatives.

Keywords

Decision-making
Behavioural science
HIV prevention
Intervention design
Public health
==== Body
pmcThe syndemic of HIV, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and early pregnancy continues to pose a critical challenge to global public health (Unaids. in danger, 2022). Biomedical sexual and reproductive health (SRH) technologies and their uptake are essential to reducing these negative SRH outcomes, and there is a push to develop products with attributes better suited to user preference (Bekker et al., 2022). To overcome issues of accessibility, new interventions to increase service uptake have been developed with varying degrees of success (Rapaport et al., 2023, Goldstein et al., 2023, Vanhamel et al., 2020).

While better tailored technologies and increased modes of access are critical for HIV prevention (Vanhamel et al., 2020, Eisinger et al., 2019), more engagement is required with the decision-making process mediating product and service use. This process impacts whether a person decides to engage with a technology – regardless of its accessibility, usability, acceptability, or design. The behavioural sciences offer a strong theoretical and research evidence base to support the importance of decision-making in affecting behaviour change, but this is seldom meaningfully adopted in HIV and public health interventions (Kelly et al., 2023). When used, broad overarching theories justify or explain any range of factors selected as influencing target behaviours, while the role of decision-making and behavioural factors impact are descriptive (Kelly et al., 2023). Further, most interventions assume that people are interested in their health, that health is a priority, and that they will rationally (from the perspective of the interventionist) perceive the need to act when it is explained to them (Kippax, 2012, Hallsworth, 2023, Van Heerden et al., 2022). Interventions therefore target those who have assessed a need for behaviour change, already engaged in health services, nudging those already in the system to start other services or those prevented by structural barriers (Rapaport et al., 2023, Hartmann et al., 2024).

The decision-making process for using HIV prevention technologies is critical to understanding service engagement. While decision-making is individual, socio-cultural processes determine whether an individual will enact a behaviour (Hallsworth, 2023, Johnson, 2021, Petit, 2019). We propose using an analogy from the field of HIV prevention and treatment, building on previous seminal work (Hargreaves et al., 2016, Skovdal, 2019, Schaefer et al., 2019, Garnett et al., 2016), to think about the decision-making process. We envision this process as a cascade of decision-making with steps that a person needs to navigate, to execute the behaviours required to decide-on, and use an HIV prevention technology (Fig. 1). Like the HIV cascade, people will fall out at each stage of the process, needing to reengage repeatedly over time, and from their changing reference points (the baseline people use as a benchmark for assessing potential gains, losses, and outcomes) (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). This cascade of decision-making is informed by established behavioural science theories and frameworks (Hargreaves et al., 2016, Skovdal, 2019, Schaefer et al., 2019, Garnett et al., 2016) and adapted from the useful and simple CREATE framework (Wendel, 2020). These frameworks provide a simple heuristic for understanding the applied decision-making process that potential HIV prevention users go through as they go about their lives, filled with other (often more) urgent issues that compete for their attention (Wendel, 2020). A brief overview of the proposed cascade is provided below, simplified for the purpose of this report.Fig. 1 HIV Decision Cascade (adapted from the CREATE framework).

Firstly, in the cascade of executing an HIV prevention target behaviour (i.e., deciding to use PrEP), a person is triggered or cued to think about the action, through an external (environmental) or internal (own thought) trigger (Wendel, 2020). Many current educational and information informed interventions focus on triggers to initiate behaviour changes (Andrawis et al., 2022). They anticipate that rational explanations and health focused cues highlighting the importance and benefits of PrEP will motivate individual’s use (Rapaport et al., 2023, Vanhamel et al., 2020, Hartmann et al., 2024). However, our minds have limited capacity to process information, and attentional blindness may filter out triggers perceived as unimportant (Johnson, 2021, Kahneman and Tversky, 1979, Wendel, 2020). Therefore, if HIV prevention is not prioritised or has low perceived probability of happening, related cues and messaging may be filtered out (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) and people may fail to act, regardless of what HIV prevention product is presented to them. Interventions should be designed with triggers for broader appeal or use external motivation to focus attention, highlighting the relevance of the behaviour long enough to retain the person in the decision cascade. For instance, messaging appealing to better sex (“have great sex”), are risqué (“I swallow daily”) (Apicha Community Health Center, https://www.apicha.org/) or linked to goals (“I am making sure I take over the world“) could catch attention and challenge the perception that HIV prevention technologies are only for “at-risk people,” engaging a broader potential user base (Philpott et al., 2006, Brown-Bowers et al., 2015, Macintyre et al., 2015).

In the second step of the cascade, potential users have a reaction to thinking about something (Wendel, 2020, Michie et al., 2011). This response is fast, and often not conscious to us – our system one thinking (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). This process is affected by the associations our brains make with the action and determine how we think about it (Johnson, 2021). In HIV prevention, unconscious, negative associations with HIV cause discomfort − linked to negative outcomes, relational problems or perceptions of mistrust and stigmatisation (UNAIDS, 2022, Hartmann et al., 2024, Humphries et al., 2022). While these could be overcome by conscious, more deliberative thought, it may make the action feel wrong and therefore unsustainable. These negative reactions and their impact on behaviour change, which may include an early exit from the cascade, are key when designing interventions. Further, cognitive biases and heuristics mediate how people process information (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979, Gilovich et al., 2002). For instance, people may recall negative associations with HIV most easily (availability bias), seek out or use information to confirm their low risk (confirmation bias), or underestimate the likelihood of acquisition because they do not perceive themselves as their prototype of an “at-risk” person (representativeness heuristics) (Hallsworth, 2023, Gilovich et al., 2002). These may lead to apathetic, or negative reactions to HIV prevention messaging, regardless of information availability or delivery.

In the third step, the decision to execute a behaviour, is a conscious process, especially for novel situations like deciding to use HIV prevention technologies. Reaching this stage requires overcoming the barriers of steps one and two. Here then, more deliberative processes enable the individual evaluation about action, given potential costs and benefits (Wendel, 2020). This process is complex and mediated by numerous subjective evaluations made from the individual’s reference point and is affected by biases and beliefs, possibly making their decisions and actions appear irrational to health care professionals. However, 1) the costs and benefits of acting are subjective, may not be fully understood by the decision-maker and the magnitude of importance is personal, 2) the information informing the evaluation is mediated by its source, perceived bias and trustworthiness, 3) the need for further information is also subjective and 4) the evaluation is affected by currently relevant motivations (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979, Wendel, 2020). Critically, if the action is evaluated to be worth the effort, and better than the subjectively valued available alternatives, they will move along in the decision cascade (Wendel, 2020). However, if a person assesses that PrEP use could potentially jeopardise an important relationship, and believes their partner is HIV negative (based on phenotypic characteristics, conversations with the partner or trust (Humphries et al., 2022), the alternative of accepting the trustworthiness of a partner and avoiding any relational strife is preferable to seeking HIV prevention services.

Step four in the decision cascade takes place after the evaluation of the decision to act and involves the assessment about the actual feasibility of doing so (Wendel, 2020, Michie et al., 2011). At this step, there are several concrete steps to take. Firstly, one needs knowledge of what is required, here, knowing where, when and how to access HIV prevention services is critical. Issues of access will likely mediate this assessment of ability. Secondly, resources are critical for action and even where a need is considered worthwhile, without resources it will be unfeasible. Issues assessed during the cost-benefit evaluation may still serve to mediate ability here or may change the reference point for the decision. Interventions that increase access to services and cash-incentivised programmes can help to improve individual’s ability to act (Rapaport et al., 2023, Goldstein et al., 2023, Vanhamel et al., 2020, Hartmann et al., 2024, Nagai et al., 2024). Finally, they must perceive themself to have the skills and self-efficacy to act successfully (Petit, 2019, Wendel, 2020, Prochaska et al., 2008). Many HIV prevention interventions have a strong focus on improving a person’s ability to use HIV services (Rapaport et al., 2023, Goldstein et al., 2023, Vanhamel et al., 2020, Van Heerden et al., 2022, Hartmann et al., 2024, Nagai et al., 2024), however by focusing on barriers to ability we exclude potential users who dropped out earlier in the cascade.

The fifth step relates to timing– an issue often absent from HIV prevention efforts, but a critical element in the CREATE framework (Wendel, 2020). If a potential user feels a need for HIV prevention services, the action is appealing and assessed as feasible – they will still need to decide when to act (Wendel, 2020). This is often mediated by feelings of urgency and may explain why people delay HIV prevention service engagement. If HIV services are not perceived as urgent, people may delay service engagement, rather initiating a new decision-making process when next prompted to do so. Using commitment devices, supporting motivation to act/continue to act, and supporting habit formation is critical at this stage. If all these decisions are made and the action is considered important, feasible, and correctly timed, then a person will execute the behaviour (Wendel, 2020). It is important that each step is viewed from the perspective of the decision-maker and they will only continue if an action is more effective or preferred to available alternatives.

Thinking of the decision-making process as a cascade, highlights important characteristics of the process and links logically to existing HIV prevention metaphors. While earlier steps occur with little conscious thought, later steps require conscious deliberation, and different interventional components to support the decision process. It is possible that the steps may not always be sequential and may interact with one another. For example, automatic reactions may change or take place again after a choice has been consciously deliberated (Wendel, 2020) (i.e. initial negative reactions to oral PrEP use could be overcome with information about alternative PrEP formulations), while factors relating to ability and timing may inform the evaluation of taking the action (i.e. economic costs of accessing services may inform the cost-benefit evaluation). Criticism of the process may highlight its perceived individual focus, but this is not accurate. The process, and all decision-making steps as described above, are influenced, and informed by factors from across different ecological levels, however, the individual is ultimately required to both decide and eventually act.

This cascade highlights different types of decision-makers requiring, but not using these services, and unlike many other frameworks, does not focus only on users desiring services, but whose engagement is prevented by broader ecological factors (Hargreaves et al., 2016, Skovdal, 2019, Schaefer et al., 2019, Garnett et al., 2016). The decision cascade can be used to understand once-off decisions, decisions to initiate a complex behaviour as well as continual, simpler decisions. For continued decision-making, the process is quicker as it becomes more habitual, and some steps may become less important. For instance, oral PrEP tablet adherence may require support to develop cues to action as a reminder, but the reaction, evaluations, ability, and timing steps may become habitual. This may change if the decision-making context changes, for example, if someone starts experiencing medication side-effects, then the reaction and evaluation steps may become more important. The cascade of decision-making highlights the need for HIV prevention and public health researchers to design interventions tailored to support each step in the cascade, for distinct behaviours. Therefore, interventions that support 1) the deliberative thought processes required for completing complex, novel behaviours (i.e. deciding to use an HIV prevention technology), 2) once-off behaviours (i.e. VMMC), and 3) habit formation (i.e. oral PrEP adherence). For example, leveraging cash incentives to support simple, once-off behaviours, promoting ease and fluency of information and service use to make it simpler for users to understand and get HIV prevention products (Vlaev et al., 2019), promoting positive associations (Johnson, 2021) with HIV prevention technologies (i.e. sex positivity) (Apicha Community Health Center, xxxx, Philpott et al., 2006), using defaults and applying behavioural interventions to steer positive behaviours unconsciously and consciously (i.e. nudges, reinforcement) (Kelly et al., 2023, Petit, 2019), and creating dynamic segmentations of potential users (a role for artificial intelligence approaches) to improve our understanding about where users fall-out in the process, offering opportunities for developing new indicators for monitoring progress in HIV prevention at a policy level (Van Heerden et al., 2022, Humphries et al., 2018).

The decision cascade aligns with dominant thinking about HIV prevention. It is a useful research-supported visualisation, facilitating the conceptualisation of decision-making as a process, continuously happening for existing or potential users. There is scope to apply it beyond decision-making for HIV prevention technologies to other SRH technologies. It frames continued behavioural actions, recognising the difficulty users face each time they must engage in a particular and necessary behaviour. This can inform intervention design highlighting the need for true human-centred approaches, prioritising the decision-maker’s realities. We challenge researchers to adopt such approaches, making explicit their underlying design, population, and user decision-making assumptions, to improve intervention success.

Funding sources

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Hilton Humphries: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Resources, Methodology, Conceptualization. Lucia Knight: Writing – review & editing. Alastair van Heerden: Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.
==== Refs
References

Andrawis A. Tapa J. Vlaev I. Applying Behavioural Insights to HIV Prevention and Management: a Scoping Review Curr. HIV/AIDS Rep. 2022 10.1007/s11904-022-00615-z published online Aug 5
Apicha Community Health Center. ‘I swallow daily’ Campaign. https://www.apicha.org/.
Bekker L.-G. Pike C. Hillier S.L. HIV prevention: better choice for better coverage J. Int. AIDS Soc. 2022 2022 25872
Brown-Bowers A. Gurevich M. Vasilovsky A.T. Cosma S. Matti S. Managed not missing: Young women’s discourses of sexual desire within a postfeminist heterosexual marketplace Psychol. Women Q 39 2015 320 336
Eisinger R.W. Folkers G.K. Fauci A.S. Ending the HIV pandemic: optimizing the prevention and treatment toolkits Clin. Infect. Dis. 8 2019 255 256
Garnett G.P. Hallett T.B. Takaruza A. Providing a conceptual framework for HIV prevention cascades and assessing feasibility of empirical measurement with data from east Zimbabwe: a case study Lancet HIV 3 2016 e297 e306 27365204
Gilovich T. Griffin D. Kahneman D. Heuristics and Biases 2002 Cambridge University Press 10.1017/CBO9780511808098
Goldstein M. Archary M. Adong J. Systematic review of mhealth interventions for adolescent and young adult HIV prevention and the adolescent HIV continuum of care in low to middle income countries AIDS Behav. 27 2023 94 115 36322217
Hallsworth M. A manifesto for applying behavioural science Nat. Hum. Behav. 7 2023 310 322 36941468
Hargreaves J.R. Delany-Moretlwe S. Hallett T.B. The HIV prevention cascade: integrating theories of epidemiological, behavioural, and social science into programme design and monitoring Lancet HIV 3 2016 e318 e322 27365206
Hartmann M. Nyblade L. Otticha S. Marton T. Agot K. Roberts S.T. The development of a conceptual framework on PrEP stigma among adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa J. Int. AIDS Soc. 27 2024 26213
Humphries H. Osman F. Knight L. Abdool K.Q. Exploratory analysis of the ecological variables associated with sexual health profiles in high-risk, sexually-active female learners in rural KwaZulu-Natal PLoS One 13 2018 e0195107 29621283
Humphries H. Knight L. Mehou-Loko C. Exploring discrepant knowledge of partner sexual behaviour to inform self-risk assessment in a high HIV burdened district in rural KwaZulu-Natal Glob. Public Health 17 2022 2054 2069 34488554
Johnson E.J. The elements of choice: Why the way we decide matters 2021 Penguin
Kahneman D. Tversky A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk Econometrica 47 1979 263
Kelly MP, Arora A, Banerjee A, et al. The contribution of behavioural science to addressing the social and wider determinants of health: Evidence review. Geneva, 2023 https://www.who.int/publications/book-orders.
Kippax S. Effective HIV prevention: the indispensable role of social science J. Int. AIDS Soc. 15 2012 1 8
Macintyre A.K.J. Montero Vega A.R. Sagbakken M. From disease to desire, pleasure to the pill: A qualitative study of adolescent learning about sexual health and sexuality in Chile Health behavior, health promotion and society BMC Public Health 15 2015 945 26399632
Michie S. van Stralen M.M. West R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions Implement. Sci. 2011 6 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42 21244714
Nagai H. Ankomah A. Fuseini K. Adiibokah E. Semahegn A. Tagoe H. HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Uptake Among High-Risk Population in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis AIDS Patient Care STDS 38 2024 70 81 38381951
Petit V. The Behavioural Drivers Model: A Conceptual Framework for Social and Behaviour Change Programming. 2019.
Philpott A. Knerr W. Boydell V. Pleasure and Prevention: When Good Sex Is Safer Sex Reprod. Health Matters 14 2006 23 31 17101419
Prochaska J.J. Spring B. Nigg C.R. Multiple health behavior change research: An introduction and overview Prev. Med. (Baltim) 46 2008 181 188
Rapaport S.F. Peer A.D. Viswasam N. Implementing HIV Prevention in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review of Interventions Targeting Systems, Communities, and Individuals AIDS Behav. 27 2023 150 160 35913588
Schaefer R. Gregson S. Fearon E. Hensen B. Hallett T.B. Hargreaves J.R. HIV prevention cascades: A unifying framework to replicate the successes of treatment cascades Lancet HIV 6 2019 e60 e66 32066995
Skovdal M. Facilitating engagement with PrEP and other HIV prevention technologies through practice-based combination prevention J. Int. AIDS Soc. 22 Suppl 4 2019 e25294 31328412
UNAIDS. IN DANGER: UNAIDS Global AIDS Update 2022. Geneva, 2022.
Van Heerden A, Humphries H, Geng E. Whole person HIV services: a social science approach. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2022; published online Nov 23. DOI:10.1097/COH.0000000000000773.
Vanhamel J. Rotsaert A. Reyniers T. The current landscape of pre-exposure prophylaxis service delivery models for HIV prevention: a scoping review BMC Health Serv. Res. 20 2020 704 32736626
Vlaev I. King D. Darzi A. Dolan P. Changing health behaviors using financial incentives: A review from behavioral economics BMC Public Health 2019 19 10.1186/s12889-019-7407-8 30612553
Wendel S. Designing for Behavior Change Applying Psychology and Behavioral Economics 2nd ed. 2020 O’Reilly United States of America
