Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32794071›Full record

ReviewCurrent HIV/AIDS reports2020

Peer Group Focused eHealth Strategies to Promote HIV Prevention, Testing, and Care Engagement.

Keshet Ronen, Eli Grant, Charles Copley, Tara Batista, Brandon L Guthrie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current HIV/AIDS reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Social Media Use for Health Purposes: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  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

5 authors.

Keshet RonenUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. keshet@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5625-4884
Eli GrantPraekelt.org, Cape Town, South Africa.
Charles CopleyCedar.com, New York, NY, USA.
Tara BatistaPraekelt.org, Cape Town, South Africa.
Brandon L GuthrieUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

University of Washington/Fred Hutch Center for AIDS ResearchP30AI027757 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI CONNIE L CELUM · 1988 to 2026
$104.9M
Transform Dissemination and Implementation Science in CTSA ProgramsUL1TR002319 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI John K. Amory · 2017 to 2026
$100.0M
NCCIH Supplement to NCATS/CTSA Program for KL2 Scholars - M. SoddersKL2TR002317 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Christy Michelle McKinney · 2017 to 2026
$14.5M
NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002318 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Megan Moore · 2017 to 2026
$8.4M
Planning the mPACT Trial - mHealth strategies for the Pediatric to Adult HIV Care TransitionR34MH114834 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI GUTHRIE, BRANDON LODGE · 2018 to 2020
$680k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR002317NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002318NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002319NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI027757NIMH NIH HHS R34 MH114834
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewElectronic communication platforms are increasingly used to support all steps of the HIV care cascade (an approach defined as eHealth). Most studies have employed individual-level approaches in which participants are connected with information, reminders, or a healthcare worker. Recent growth in use of social media platforms, which create digital communities, has created an opportunity to leverage virtual peer-to-peer connection to improve HIV prevention and care. In this article, we describe the current landscape of peer group eHealth interventions in the HIV field, based on a review of published literature, an online survey of unpublished ongoing work, and discussions with practitioners in the field in an in-person workshop. RECENT

findingsWe identified 45 published articles and 12 ongoing projects meeting our inclusion criteria. Most reports were formative or observational; only three randomized evaluations of two interventions were reported. Studies indicated that use of peer group eHealth interventions is acceptable and has unique potential to influence health behaviors, but participants reported privacy concerns. Evaluations of health outcomes of peer group eHealth interventions show promising data, but more rigorous evaluations are needed. Development of group eHealth interventions presents unique technological, practical, and ethical challenges. Intervention design must consider privacy and data sovereignty concerns, and respond to rapid changes in platform use. Innovative development of open-source tools with high privacy standards is needed.

Indexed as

Social MediaAcquired Immunodeficiency SyndromeBehavior TherapyHealth BehaviorHIV InfectionsHumansPeer GroupPrimary PreventionTelemedicineTreatment OutcomeDigitaleHealthHIVmHealthPeerSocial media

Identifiers

PMID32794071
PMCPMC7492479

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.