Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30584383›Full record

ReviewAdolescent health, medicine and therapeutics2018

Screening for HIV and linkage to care in adolescents: insights from a systematic review of recent interventions in high- versus low- and middle-income settings.

Brian C Zanoni, Ryan J Elliott, Anne M Neilan, Jessica E Haberer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Adolescent health, medicine and therapeutics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  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. 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

4 authors.

Brian C ZanoniDepartment of Global Health, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, bzanoni@mgh.harvard.edu.
Ryan J ElliottPremedical Program, Harvard Extension School, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Anne M NeilanDepartment of Global Health, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, bzanoni@mgh.harvard.edu.
Jessica E HabererDepartment of Global Health, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, bzanoni@mgh.harvard.edu.

Funding

Diagnosing and preventing HIV infection in adolescents and young adults in the US: clinical impact and cost-effectivenessK08HD094638 · NICHD · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI NEILAN, ANNE · 2018 to 2023
$936k
Optimizing mHealth for adherence monitoring and interventionK24MH114732 · NIMH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI HABERER, JESSICA ELIZABETH · 2017 to 2021
$800k
INTSHA: INTERACTIVE TRANSITION SUPPORT FOR HIV-INFECTED ADOLESCENTS USING SOCIAL MEDIAK23MH114771 · NIMH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI ZANONI, BRIAN C. · 2018 to 2021
$778k
NICHD NIH HHS K08 HD094638NIMH NIH HHS K23 MH114771NIMH NIH HHS K24 MH114732
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCompared to adults, adolescents and young adults have a higher incidence of HIV infection, yet lower rates of HIV testing. Few evidence-based interventions effectively diagnose new HIV infections among adolescents while successfully providing linkage to care.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of recent interventions to increase HIV testing among adolescents and young adults using data retrieved from PubMed and Google Scholar, and using abstracts presented at the International AIDS Society conferences and Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections published between January 1, 2015, and April 28, 2018.

resultsWe identified 36 interventions (N=14 in high- income countries and N=22 in low- and middle-income countries) that were published in the literature (N=28) or presented at conferences (N=8). Interventions were categorized as behavioral/educational, alternate venue/self-testing, youth-friendly services, technology/mobile health, incentives, or peer-based/community-based interventions. The studies consisted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective observational studies, and quasi-experimental/pre-post evaluations with variable sample sizes. Study designs, populations, and settings varied. All categories showed some degree of acceptability, yet not all interventions were effective in increasing HIV testing. Effectiveness was seen in more than one RCT involving technology/mobile health (2/3 RCTs) and alternative venue/self-testing (3/3 RCTs) interventions, and only in one RCT each for behavioral interventions, community interventions, and incentives. There were no effective RCTs for adolescent-friendly services. Data were limited on the number of new infections identified and on the methods to increase linkage to care after diagnosis.

conclusionFuture studies should include combinations of proven methods for engaging adolescents in HIV testing, while ensuring effective methods of linkage to care.

Indexed as

adolescentbarriersHIVinterventionstesting

Identifiers

PMID30584383
PMCPMC6287534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.