Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25350001›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Intimate partner violence after disclosure of HIV test results among pregnant women in Harare, Zimbabwe.

Simukai Shamu, Christina Zarowsky, Tamara Shefer, Marleen Temmerman, Naeemah Abrahams

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

78 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 153 citations in OpenAlex.

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

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Simukai ShamuGender and Health Research Unit, Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa; School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.
Christina ZarowskySchool of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa; University of Montreal Hospital Research Centre (CR-CHUM), Montreal, Canada.
Tamara SheferWomen's and Gender Studies, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.
Marleen TemmermanInternational Centre for Reproductive Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Naeemah AbrahamsGender and Health Research Unit, Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa; School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa.
University of the Western Cape · ZAGhent University Hospital · BEUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHIV status disclosure is a central strategy in HIV prevention and treatment but in high prevalence settings women test disproportionately and most often during pregnancy. This study reports intimate partner violence (IPV) following disclosure of HIV test results by pregnant women.

methodsIn this cross sectional study we interviewed 1951 postnatal women who tested positive and negative for HIV about IPV experiences following HIV test disclosure, using an adapted WHO questionnaire. Multivariate regression models assessed factors associated with IPV after disclosure and controlled for factors such as previous IPV and other known behavioural factors associated with IPV.

resultsOver 93% (1817) disclosed the HIV results to their partners (96.5% HIV- vs. 89.3% HIV+, p<0.0001). Overall HIV prevalence was 15.3%, (95%CI:13.7-16.9), 35.2% among non-disclosers and 14.3% among disclosers. Overall 32.8% reported IPV (40.5% HIV+; 31.5% HIV- women, p = 0.004). HIV status was associated with IPV (partially adjusted 1.43: (95%CI:1.00-2.05 as well as reporting negative reactions by male partners immediately after disclosure (adjusted OR 5.83, 95%CI:4.31-7.80). Factors associated with IPV were gender inequity, past IPV, risky sexual behaviours and living with relatives. IPV after HIV disclosure in pregnancy is high but lower than and is strongly related with IPV before pregnancy (adjusted OR 6.18, 95%CI: 3.84-9.93).

conclusionThe study demonstrates the interconnectedness of IPV, HIV status and its disclosure with IPV which was a common experience post disclosure of both an HIV positive and HIV negative result. Health services must give attention to the gendered nature and consequences of HIV disclosure such as enskilling women on how to determine and respond to the risks associated with disclosure. Efforts to involve men in antenatal care must also be strengthened.

Indexed as

DisclosureSexual PartnersSpouse AbuseAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMiddle AgedPregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousPrevalencePublic Health SurveillanceSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25350001
PMCPMC4211664
OpenAlexW2046566276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.