ArticlePloS one2021
Improved HIV case finding among key populations after differentiated data driven community testing approaches in Zambia.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peer network approaches for improving HIV testing, prevention and care utilisation among men in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Health worker acceptability of an HIV testing mobile health application within a rural Zambian HIV treatment programme.PloS one · 2025Article
- Stakeholders' perspective on inclusion of key populations unique identifier codes in routine health information management system in South Africa.Southern African journal of HIV medicine · 2025Article
- Barriers to Accessing Antiretroviral Treatment Among Key Populations in Southwest Nigeria.Cureus · 2024Article
- Taking the Big Leap | understanding, accessing and improving behavioural science interventions.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionOpen Doors, an HIV prevention project targeting key populations in Zambia, recorded low HIV positivity rates (9%) among HIV testing clients, compared to national adult prevalence (12.3%), suggesting case finding efficiency could be improved. To close this gap, they undertook a series of targeted programmatic and management interventions. We share the outcomes of these interventions, specifically changes in testing volume, HIV positivity rate, and total numbers of key populations living with HIV identified.
methodsThe project implemented a range of interventions to improve HIV case finding using a Total Quality Leadership and Accountability (TQLA) approach. We analyzed program data for key populations who received HIV testing six months before the interventions (October 2017-March 2018) and 12 months after (April 2018-March 2019). Interrupted time series analysis was used to evaluate the impact on HIV positivity and total case finding and trends in positivity and case finding over time, before and after the interventions.
resultsWhile the monthly average number of HIV tests performed increased by only 14% post-intervention, the monthly average number of HIV positive individuals identified increased by 290%. The average HIV positivity rate rose from 9.7% to 32.4%. Positivity rates and case finding remained significantly higher in all post-intervention months. Similar trends were observed among FSW and MSM.
conclusionsThe Open Doors project was able to reach large numbers of previously undiagnosed key populations by implementing a targeted managerial and technical intervention, resulting in a significant increase in the HIV positivity rate sustained over 12 months. These results demonstrate that differentiated, data-driven approaches can help close the 95-95-95 gaps among key populations.
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.