ArticleAIDS (London, England)2019
Work and home productivity of people living with HIV in Zambia and 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in cognitive performance following combined CogSMART-SA and BrainHQ interventions: a pilot study.BMC neurology · 2026Trial
- Determinants of Educational Institution Enrolment Among Orphaned and Vulnerable Children in Namibia: A Multi-Year Analysis 2018-2024.Child: care, health and development · 2025Article
- Social Support, Food Insecurity, and HIV Stigma Among Men Living with HIV in Rural Southwestern Uganda: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.HIV/AIDS (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Perceived Caregiver Stress, Coping, and Quality of Life of Older Ugandan Grandparent-Caregivers.Journal of cross-cultural gerontology · 2020Article
- Development of cognitive remediation interventions for people living with HIV in South Africa: participant experiences of adapted CogSMART and BrainHQFrontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare number of days lost to illness or accessing healthcare for HIV-positive and HIV-negative individuals working in the informal and formal sectors in South Africa and Zambia.
designAs part of the HPTN 071 (PopART) study, data on adults aged 18-44 years were gathered from cross-sectional surveys of random general population samples in 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa. Data on the number of productive days lost in the last 3 months, laboratory-confirmed HIV status, labour force status, age, ethnicity, education, and recreational drug use was collected.
methodsDifferences in productive days lost between HIV-negative and HIV-positive individuals ('excess productive days lost') were estimated with negative binomial models, and results disaggregated for HIV-positive individuals after various durations on antiretroviral treatment (ART).
resultsFrom samples of 19 330 respondents in Zambia and 18 004 respondents in South Africa, HIV-positive individuals lost more productive days to illness than HIV-negative individuals in both countries. HIV-positive individuals in Zambia lost 0.74 excess productive days [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-1.01; P < 0.001] to illness over a 3-month period. HIV-positive in South Africa lost 0.13 excess days (95% CI 0.04-0.23; P = 0.007). In Zambia, those on ART for less than 1 year lost most days, and those not on ART lost fewest days. In South Africa, results disaggregated by treatment duration were not statistically significant.
conclusionThere is a loss of work and home productivity associated with HIV, but it is lower than existing estimates for HIV-positive formal sector workers. The findings support policy makers in building an accurate investment case for HIV interventions.
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.