Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23496926›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2013

Couple experiences of provider-initiated couple HIV testing in an antenatal clinic in Lusaka, Zambia: lessons for policy and practice.

Maurice Musheke, Virginia Bond, Sonja Merten

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02994329 (Community-based Distribution of Oral HIV Self-testing Kits-A Pilot Intervention and Rapid Impact Evaluation), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02994329 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Community-based Distribution of Oral HIV Self-testing Kits-A Pilot Intervention and Rapid Impact Evaluation

TypeinterventionalSponsorZambartRan2017 to 2017Enrolled8,080ConditionsHIV SeropositivityArmsOraQuick® HIV Self-Test (Orasure Technologies, Thailand)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maurice MushekeZambia AIDS-related TB Research Project, University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zambia. maurice.musheke@unibas.ch
Virginia Bond
Sonja Merten

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCouple HIV testing has been recognized as critical to increase uptake of HIV testing, facilitate disclosure of HIV status to marital partner, improve access to treatment, care and support, and promote safe sex. The Zambia national protocol on integrated prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) allows for the provision of couple testing in antenatal clinics. This paper examines couple experiences of provider-initiated couple HIV testing at a public antenatal clinic and discusses policy and practical lessons.

methodsUsing a narrative approach, open-ended in-depth interviews were held with couples (n = 10) who underwent couple HIV testing; women (n = 5) and men (n = 2) who had undergone couple HIV testing but were later abandoned by their spouses; and key informant interviews with lay counsellors (n = 5) and nurses (n = 2). On-site observations were also conducted at the antenatal clinic and HIV support group meetings. Data collection was conducted between March 2010 and September 2011. Data was organised and managed using Atlas ti, and analysed and interpreted thematically using content analysis approach.

resultsHealth workers sometimes used coercive and subtle strategies to enlist women's spouses for couple HIV testing resulting in some men feeling 'trapped' or 'forced' to test as part of their paternal responsibility. Couple testing had some positive outcomes, notably disclosure of HIV status to marital partner, renewed commitment to marital relationship, uptake of and adherence to treatment and formation of new social networks. However, there were also negative repercussions including abandonment, verbal abuse and cessation of sexual relations. Its promotion also did not always lead to safe sex as this was undermined by gendered power relationships and the desires for procreation and sexual intimacy.

conclusionsCouple HIV testing provides enormous bio-medical and social benefits and should be encouraged. However, testing strategies need to be non-coercive. Providers of couple HIV testing also need to be mindful of the intimate context of partner relationships including couples' childbearing aspirations and lived experiences. There is also need to make antenatal clinics more male-friendly and responsive to men's health needs, as well as being attentive and responsive to gender inequality during couselling sessions.

Indexed as

Family CharacteristicsHealth PolicyPrenatal CarePublic Health PracticeSpousesAdolescentAdultFemaleHIV SeropositivityHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, VerticalMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchYoung AdultZambia

Identifiers

PMID23496926
PMCPMC3602029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.