Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30932868›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2019

Informing HIV Prevention Programs for Adolescent Girls and Young Women: A Modified Approach to Programmatic Mapping and Key Population Size Estimation.

Eve Cheuk, Shajy Isac, Helgar Musyoki, Michael Pickles, Parinita Bhattacharjee, Peter Gichangi, Robert Lorway, Sharmistha Mishra, James Blanchard, Marissa Becker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Frontiers in reproductive health · 2020
    Article
  16. 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Eve CheukCentre for Global Public Health, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3618-2689
Shajy IsacIndia Health Action Trust, Bangalore, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4272-7748
Helgar MusyokiNational AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Infection Control Programme, Ministry of Health, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0972-6065
Michael PicklesCentre for Global Public Health, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6754-3945
Parinita BhattacharjeeCentre for Global Public Health, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3277-7693
Peter GichangiInternational Centre for Reproductive Health Kenya, Mombasa, Kenya.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9636-165X
Robert LorwayCentre for Global Public Health, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6923-8832
Sharmistha MishraLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8492-5470
James BlanchardCentre for Global Public Health, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0663-6758
Marissa BeckerCentre for Global Public Health, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9235-0547
University of Manitoba · CAIndia Health Action Trust · INInternational Centre for Reproductive Health Kenya · KEMinistry of Health · KEPartners for Health and Development in Africa · KESt. Michael's Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStandard programmatic mapping involves identifying locations where key populations meet, profiling of these locations (hotspots), and estimating the key population size. Information gained from this method has been used for HIV programming-resource allocation, program planning, service delivery, and monitoring and evaluation-for people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, and female sex workers (FSWs). With an increasing focus on adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) as a priority population for HIV prevention, programs need to know the location of and how to effectively reach individuals who are at increased risk for HIV but were conventionally considered part of the general population. We hypothesize that AGYW who engage in transactional and casual sex also congregate at sex work hotspots to meet sex partners. Therefore, we adapted the standard programmatic mapping approach to understand the geographic distribution and population size of AGYW at increased HIV risk in Mombasa County, Kenya.

objectivesThe objectives are several-fold: (1) detail and compare the modified programmatic mapping approach used in this study to the standard approach, (2) estimate the number of young FSWs, (3) estimate the number of AGYW who congregate in sex work hotspots to meet sex partners other than clients, (4) estimate the overlap in sexual network in hotspots, (5) describe the distribution of sex work hotspots across Mombasa and its four subcounties, and (6) compare the distribution of hotspots that were known to the local HIV prevention program prior to this study and those newly identified.

methodsThe standard programmatic mapping approach was modified to estimate the population of young women aged 14 to 24 years who visit sex work hotspots in Mombasa to meet partners for commercial, transactional, and casual sex.

resultsWe estimated that there were 11,777 FSWs (range 9265 to 14,290) in Mombasa in 2014 among whom 6127 (52.02%) were 14 to 24 years old. The population estimates for women aged 14 to 24 years who engaged in transactional and casual sex and congregated at the hotspots were 5348 (range 4185 to 6510) and 4160 (range 3194 to 5125), respectively. Of the 1025 validated sex work hotspots, 870 (84.88%) were locations also visited by women engaged in transactional and casual sex. Only 47 (4.58%) hotspots were exclusive sex work locations. The geographic and typological distribution of hotspots were significantly different between the four subcounties (P<.001). Of the 1025 hotspots, 419 (40.88%) were already known to the local HIV prevention program and 606 (59.12%) were newly identified.

conclusionsUsing the adapted programmatic mapping approach detailed in this study, our results show that HIV prevention programs tailored to AGYW can focus delivery of their interventions to sex work hotspots to reach subgroups that may be at increased risk for HIV.

Indexed as

adolescent girls and young womencasual sexfemale sex workersHIV preventionkey population size estimationprogrammatic mappingsex worktransactional sex

Identifiers

PMID30932868
PMCPMC6462887
OpenAlexW2914419425

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.