Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31314764›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Which community-based HIV initiatives are effective in achieving UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets? A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence (2007-2018).

Sailly Dave, Trevor Peter, Clare Fogarty, Nicolaos Karatzas, Nandi Belinsky, Nitika Pant Pai

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  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

6 authors.

Sailly DaveDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Trevor PeterClinton Health Access Initiative, Gaborone, Botswana.
Clare FogartyDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Nicolaos KaratzasDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Nandi BelinskyDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Nitika Pant PaiDivision of Clinical Epidemiology, Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4672-0500

Funding

CIHR 137872CIHR PJT 153149
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReaching the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) 90-90-90 targets to end the HIV epidemic relies on effective interventions that engage untested HIV+ individuals and retain them in care. Evidence on community-based interventions through the lens of the targets has not yet been synthesized, reflecting a knowledge gap. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to shed light on successful community-based interventions that have been effective in contributing, directly or indirectly, towards the UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets: knowledge of HIV status, linkage to care/on treatment, and viral suppression. Linkage to care was also included in this review due to the limitations of studies.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the period 2007-2018. Eleven databases were searched to identify community-based interventions designed to improve knowledge of HIV status (in particular HIV testing), linkage to care/on treatment, and/or viral suppression. Eligible studies were classified by intervention, population, country income level, outcomes and success. Success was defined as interventions demonstrating statistical significance between intervention and control group or that reached any target by proportion; 90% testing, 81% linked to care/on treatment and 73% viral suppression.

resultsOf 82 eligible studies, 51.2% (42/82) reported on HIV testing (first 90), 20.7% (17/82) on linkage to care/ on treatment (second 90), and 45.1% (37/82) on viral suppression (third 90). In all, 67.1% (55/82) of studies reported success; 21 studies on the first 90, 9 towards linkage to care/on treatment, and 25 towards the third. By strategies, 36.6% deployed community workers/peers, 22% used combined test and treat strategies, 12.2% used educational methods, 8.5% used mobile testing, 7.3% used campaigns and 13.4% used technology. For HIV testing/linkage, combined test/treat interventions were often used, for viral suppression, educational interventions and technologies were commonly deployed. Our pooled analysis suggested that deployment of community health care workers/peer workers significantly improved viral suppression (pooled OR: 1.40 95% CI 1.06-1.86). Of the studies published after 2014, 50.0% reported metrics aligned with UNAIDS targets.

conclusionsData on linkage to care/on treatment (second target) remained weak, because many studies reported successes on the first and third targets. Stratification by targets and country income levels is informative and guides adaptation of successful interventions in comparable settings. Consistent reporting of clear metrics aligned with UNAIDS targets will aid in synergy of study data with programmatic data that will help reportage. Exploration of innovative interventions, for engagement and linkage and deployment of community/ peer workers is strongly encouraged.

Indexed as

Acquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareHIV InfectionsHumansPublic Health SurveillanceUnited Nations

Identifiers

PMID31314764
PMCPMC6636761

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.