ArticleBMC public health2024
Size estimation of key populations and 'bridge populations' based on the network scale-up method in Ukraine.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping of sex work hotspots to guide targeted HIV prevention: Evidence from eight Ukrainian cities.PloS one · 2026Article
- Being yourself is a defect: analysis of documented rights violations related to sexual orientation, gender identity and HIV in 2022 using the REAct system in six eastern European, Caucasus and Central Asian countries.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCorrect estimation of the size of key and bridge populations is crucial for an efficient HIV/AIDS response in resource-limited settings, enabling efficient program planning and resource allocation. The hidden nature of these groups poses challenges to traditional methods, leading to the adoption of innovative approaches like the network scale-up method (NSUM). In this article we present the results of a NSUM study conducted in 2020 in Ukraine, focusing on four key populations and three bridge populations, highlighting challenges and contributions to development of the method.
methodsFrom July to September 2020, we conducted a nationally representative survey in Ukraine via computer-assisted telephone interviews, and applied the known population method and summation method to estimate social networks sizes. Results were weighted based on individual sampling probability and adjusted for social respect and visibility factors to address potential limitations.
resultsOur study achieved a 20% response rate with 10,000 completed interviews. The social network size, using the known population method, was 213 people, and 125 using the summation method. Adjusting for the social respect and visibility, estimated key populations sizes were 295,857 [248,714-343,001] people who inject drugs, 152,267 [109,960-194,573] men who have sex with men, 78,385 [57,146-99,619] sex workers, and 9,963 [7,352-12,571] transgender people, detailed by age and gender. Bridge populations were estimated at 62,162 [50,445-73,879] sexual partners of people who inject drugs, 284,348 [233,113-335,583] clients of sex workers, and 13,697 [7,370-20,026] female partners of men who have sex with men.
conclusionsNSUM proves reliable for estimating key populations size with appropriate corrections. It shows promise for further use in Ukraine, considering limited geographic coverage of the integrated bio-behavioral studies to use multiplier-based methods. However, the validity concerns persist for estimating bridge populations size, emphasizing the need for further method refinement and addressing implementation issues, particularly those related to data collection.
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.