Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27365204›Full record

ArticleThe lancet. HIV2016

Providing a conceptual framework for HIV prevention cascades and assessing feasibility of empirical measurement with data from east Zimbabwe: a case study.

Geoffrey P Garnett, Timothy B Hallett, Albert Takaruza, James Hargreaves, Rebecca Rhead, Mitchel Warren, Constance Nyamukapa, Simon Gregson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The lancet. HIV, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Developing evidence-informed indicators to monitor HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis programmes across EU/EEA countries: a multi-stakeholder consensus.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. HIV prevention metrics: lessons to be learned from contraception.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Geoffrey P GarnettBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA. Electronic address: geoff.garnett@gatesfoundation.org.
Timothy B HallettDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London School of Public Health, London, UK.
Albert TakaruzaBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
James HargreavesLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Rebecca RheadBiomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Mitchel WarrenAVAC, New York, NY, USA.
Constance NyamukapaDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London School of Public Health, London, UK; Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Simon GregsonDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London School of Public Health, London, UK; Biomedical Research and Training Institute, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Biomedical Research and Training Institute · ZWImperial College London · GBBill & Melinda Gates Foundation · USLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe HIV treatment cascade illustrates the steps required for successful treatment and is a powerful advocacy and monitoring tool. Similar cascades for people susceptible to infection could improve HIV prevention programming. We aim to show the feasibility of using cascade models to monitor prevention programmes.

methodsConceptual prevention cascades are described taking intervention-centric and client-centric perspectives to look at supply, demand, and efficacy of interventions. Data from two rounds of a population-based study in east Zimbabwe are used to derive the values of steps for cascades for voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) and for partner reduction or condom use driven by HIV testing and counselling (HTC).

findingsIn 2009 to 2011 the availability of circumcision services was negligible, but by 2012 to 2013 about a third of the population had access. However, where it was available only 12% of eligible men sought to be circumcised leading to an increase in circumcision prevalence from 3·1% to 6·9%. Of uninfected men, 85·3% did not perceive themselves to be at risk of acquiring HIV. The proportions of men and women tested for HIV increased from 27·5% to 56·6% and from 61·1% to 79·6%, respectively, with 30·4% of men tested self-reporting reduced sexual partner numbers and 12·8% reporting increased condom use.

interpretationPrevention cascades can be populated to inform HIV prevention programmes. In eastern Zimbabwe programmes need to provide greater access to circumcision services and the design and implementation of associated demand creation activities. Whereas, HTC services need to consider how to increase reductions in partner numbers or increased condom use or should not be considered as contributing to prevention services for the HIV-negative adults.

fundingWellcome Trust and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Indexed as

Research DesignAcquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeAdultCircumcision, MaleCounselingEmpirical ResearchFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHIV InfectionsHumansMalePrevalenceSexual BehaviorSexual PartnersZimbabwe

Identifiers

PMID27365204
PMCPMC4935672
OpenAlexW2464004782

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.