Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26424712›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted infections2016

Respondent-driven sampling as a recruitment method for men who have sex with men in southern sub-Saharan Africa: a cross-sectional analysis by wave.

Shauna Stahlman, Lisa G Johnston, Clarence Yah, Sosthenes Ketende, Sibusiso Maziya, Gift Trapence, Vincent Jumbe, Bhekie Sithole, Tampose Mothopeng, Zandile Mnisi and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Shauna StahlmanDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Public Health and Human Rights, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2861-7734
Lisa G JohnstonDepartment of Global Health Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.
Clarence YahDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Public Health and Human Rights, Baltimore, Maryland, USA Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa.
Sosthenes KetendeDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Public Health and Human Rights, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Sibusiso MaziyaRock of Hope, Manzini, Swaziland.
Gift TrapenceCenter for the Development of People, Blantyre, Malawi.
Vincent JumbeMalawi College of Medicine, Blantyre, Malawi Centre for Global Health, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Bhekie SitholeRock of Hope, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Tampose MothopengRock of Hope, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Zandile MnisiMinistry of Health, Mbabane, Swaziland.
Stefan BaralDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Public Health and Human Rights, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USSwaziland National Trust Commission · SZMinistry of Health · SZUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Malawi · MW

Funding

Vaccine Response and Immunotherapeutics SWGP30AI094189 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Richard E. Chaisson · 2012 to 2026
$67.0M
NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI094189PEPFAR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRespondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a popular method for recruiting men who have sex with men (MSM). Our objective is to describe the ability of RDS to reach MSM for HIV testing in three southern African nations.

methodsData collected via RDS among MSM in Lesotho (N=318), Swaziland (N=310) and Malawi (N=334) were analysed by wave in order to characterise differences in sample characteristics. Seeds were recruited from MSM-affiliated community-based organisations. Men were interviewed during a single study visit and tested for HIV. χ(2) tests for trend were used to examine differences in the proportions across wave category.

resultsA maximum of 13-19 recruitment waves were achieved in each study site. The percentage of those who identified as gay/homosexual decreased as waves increased in Lesotho (49% to 27%, p<0.01). In Swaziland and Lesotho, knowledge that anal sex was the riskiest type of sex for HIV transmission decreased across waves (39% to 23%, p<0.05, and 37% to 19%, p<0.05). The percentage of participants who had ever received more than one HIV test decreased across waves in Malawi (31% to 12%, p<0.01). In Lesotho and Malawi, the prevalence of testing positive for HIV decreased across waves (48% to 15%, p<0.01 and 23% to 11%, p<0.05). Among those living with HIV, the proportion of those unaware of their status increased across waves in all study sites although this finding was not statistically significant.

conclusionsRDS that extends deeper into recruitment waves may be a promising method of reaching MSM with varying levels of HIV prevention needs.

Indexed as

Homosexuality, MalePatient SelectionSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultBlack PeopleCross-Sectional StudiesEswatiniHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHIV InfectionsHumansLesothoMalawiMalePrevalenceSampling StudiesYoung AdultAFRICAGAY MENHIVIMPLEMENTATION SCIENCEPREVENTION

Identifiers

PMID26424712
PMCPMC4860155
OpenAlexW2399239016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.