ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2022
Correcting for selection bias in HIV prevalence estimates: an application of sample selection models using data from population-based HIV surveys in seven sub-Saharan African countries.
Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Visceral leishmaniasis & HIV co-infection in Bangladesh: Investigating prevalence and policy recommendations.Journal of infection and public health · 2026Article
- Challenges and Opportunities in Big Data Science to Address Health Inequities and Focus the HIV Response.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2024Review
- Progress towards the UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets in the Fifth Botswana AIDS Impact Survey (BAIS V 2021): a nationally representative survey.The lancet. HIV · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPopulation-based biomarker surveys are the gold standard for estimating HIV prevalence but are susceptible to substantial non-participation (up to 30%). Analytical missing data methods, including inverse-probability weighting (IPW) and multiple imputation (MI), are biased when data are missing-not-at-random, for example when people living with HIV more frequently decline participation. Heckman-type selection models can, under certain assumptions, recover unbiased prevalence estimates in such scenarios.
methodsWe pooled data from 142,706 participants aged 15-49 years from nationally representative cross-sectional Population-based HIV Impact Assessments in seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa, conducted between 2015 and 2018 in Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho and Eswatini. We compared sex-stratified HIV prevalence estimates from unadjusted, IPW, MI and selection models, controlling for household and individual-level predictors of non-participation, and assessed the sensitivity of selection models to the copula function specifying the correlation between study participation and HIV status.
resultsIn total, 84.1% of participants provided a blood sample to determine HIV serostatus (range: 76% in Malawi to 95% in Uganda). HIV prevalence estimates from selection models diverged from IPW and MI models by up to 5% in Lesotho, without substantial precision loss. In Tanzania, the IPW model yielded lower HIV prevalence estimates among males than the best-fitting copula selection model (3.8% vs. 7.9%).
conclusionsWe demonstrate how HIV prevalence estimates from selection models can differ from those obtained under missing-at-random assumptions. Further benefits include exploration of plausible relationships between participation and outcome. While selection models require additional assumptions and careful specification, they are an important tool for triangulating prevalence estimates in surveys with substantial missing data due to non-participation.
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.