Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35241042›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Understanding how social support influences peer-delivered HIV prevention interventions among Ugandan female sex workers: a case study from HIV self-testing.

Maureen McGowan, Stephanie D Roche, Aidah Nakitende, Jonas Wachinger, Esther Nanyiri, Jocelyn Amongin, Ajiri Nakabuye, Daniel Kibuuka Musoke, Shannon A McMahon, Till Bӓrnighausen and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Maureen McGowanHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. maureen.mcgowan@uni-heidelberg.de.
Stephanie D RochePublic Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, USA.
Aidah NakitendeInternational Research Consortium, Kampala, Uganda.
Jonas WachingerHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Esther NanyiriInternational Research Consortium, Kampala, Uganda.
Jocelyn AmonginInternational Research Consortium, Kampala, Uganda.
Ajiri NakabuyeInternational Research Consortium, Kampala, Uganda.
Daniel Kibuuka MusokeInternational Research Consortium, Kampala, Uganda.
Shannon A McMahonHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Till BӓrnighausenHeidelberg Institute of Global Health, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Katrina F OrtbladPublic Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, USA.
University Hospital Heidelberg · DEAfrica Health Research Institute · ZAFred Hutch Cancer Center · USSeattle University · US

Funding

Training Tanzanian Researchers for HIV/AIDS Implementation ScienceD43TW009775 · FIC · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI Wafaie W Fawzi, Christopher Sudfeld · 2015 to 2026
$3.0M
Peer PrEP referral + HIV self-test for PrEP initiation among young Kenyan womenR00MH121166 · NIMH · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ORTBLAD, KATRINA FRANCES · 2021 to 2024
$866k
Peer PrEP referral + HIV self-test for PrEP initiation among young Kenyan womenK99MH121166 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ORTBLAD, KATRINA FRANCES · 2020 to 2020
$122k
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW009775NIMH NIH HHS K99 MH121166NIMH NIH HHS R00 MH121166
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFemale sex workers (FSWs) have tightly connected peer networks and remain at high risk of HIV acquisition. Peer delivery of HIV prevention interventions, such as HIV self-testing (HIVST), is a recommended implementation strategy for increasing intervention uptake and continuation among FSWs. We analyzed qualitative data from a peer-delivered HIVST intervention among FSWs in urban Uganda to understand the ways social support within this peer network can motivate or discourage the uptake of peer-delivered HIVST.

methodsBetween February and April 2017, we conducted in-depth interviews (IDIs) with FSWs (n = 30) and focus group discussions (FGDs) with FSW peer educators (PEs, n = 5) finishing participation in a four-month randomized implementation trial testing models of peer-delivered HIVST in Kampala. FSW participants were ≥ 18 years old, self-reported exchanging sex for money or goods (past month) and had not recently tested for HIV (past 3 months). FSW PEs either directly distributed HIVST kits to participants or provided coupons exchangeable for HIVST kits from specified healthcare facilities. In the IDIs and FGDs, we asked participants to share their experiences receiving or delivering peer-delivered HIVST, respectively. Using a hybrid deductive and inductive coding approach, we arranged findings along the dimensions of an established social support theory: informational, instrumental, and emotional support.

resultsThe median age of participants was 30 years (IQR: 27-33) and PEs was 33 years (IQR: 29-37). We found that social support within FSW peer networks both motivated and discouraged uptake of peer-delivered HIVST. For example, sharing positive HIVST experiences (informational support), directly delivering HIVST kits (instrumental support), and encouraging linkage to care (emotional support) motivated HIVST uptake among FSWs. Conversely, the spread of misinformation (informational support), limited HIVST kit availability fostering mistrust of PEs (instrumental support), and fear of social exclusion following HIV status disclosure (emotional support) discouraged HIVST uptake among FSWs.

conclusionsIn Uganda, social support (e.g., informational, instrumental, and emotional support) among FSW peers can work in ways that both motivate and discourage peer-delivered intervention uptake. Future FSW peer-delivered HIV prevention interventions should be designed around the dimensions of social support within FSW peer networks to maximize initial and repeat intervention delivery and uptake.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsSex WorkersAdultFemaleHumansMass ScreeningSelf-TestingSocial SupportUgandaFemale sex workerHIV self-testingPeer deliverySocial supportSub-Saharan Africa

Identifiers

PMID35241042
PMCPMC8895611
OpenAlexW4220671355

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.