ArticleAIDS (London, England)2019
No effect of test and treat on sexual behaviours at population level in rural South Africa.
Article in AIDS (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence and gap map report: Social and Behavior Change Communication (SBCC) interventions for strengthening HIV prevention and research among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).Campbell systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Early ART Initiation Improves HIV Status Disclosure and Social Support in People Living with HIV, Linked to Care Within a Universal Test and Treat Program in Rural South Africa (ANRS 12249 TasP Trial).AIDS and behavior · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextWithin the community-randomized ANRS 12249 Treatment-as-Prevention trial conducted in rural South Africa, we analysed sexual behaviours stratified by sex over time, comparing immediate antiretroviral therapy irrespective of CD4+ cell count vs. CD4+-guided antiretroviral therapy (start at CD4+ cell count > 350 cells/μl then >500 cells/μl) arms.
methodsAs part of the 6-monthly home-based trial rounds, a sexual behaviour individual questionnaire was administered to all residents at least 16 years. We considered seven indicators: sexual intercourse in the past month; at least one regular sexual partner in the past 6 months; at least one casual sexual partner in the past 6 months and more than one sexual partner in the past 6 months; condom use at last sex (CLS) with regular partner, CLS with casual partner, and point prevalence estimate of concurrency. We conducted repeated cross-sectional analyses, stratified by sex. Generalized Estimating Equations models were used, including trial arm, trial time, calendar time and interaction between trial arm and trial time.
resultsCLS with regular partner varied between 29-51% and 23-46% for men and women, respectively, with significantly lower odds among women in the control vs. intervention arm by trial end (P < 0.001). CLS with casual partner among men showed a significant interaction between arm and trial round, with no consistent pattern. Women declared more than one partner in the past 6 months in less than 1% of individual questionnaires; among men, rates varied between 5-12%, and odds significantly and continuously declined between calendar rounds 1 and 7 [odds ratio = 4.2 (3.24-5.45)].
conclusionUniversal Test and Treat was not associated with increased sexual risk behaviours.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.