ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Increasing HIV testing and linkage to care among men in rural South Africa using conditional financial incentives and a decision support app: A process evaluation.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acceptability, Usability, and Clinical Appropriateness of an AI-Powered Tool for Linkage to HIV Services After HIV Self-Testing in South Africa: Mixed Methods Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Men in sub-Saharan Africa are less likely to accept HIV testing and link to HIV care than women. We conducted a trial to investigate the impact of conditional financial incentives and a decision support application, called EPIC-HIV, on HIV testing and linkage to care. We report the findings of the trial process evaluation to explore whether the interventions were delivered as intended, identify mechanisms of impact and any contextual factors that may have impacted the trial outcomes. Between August 2018 and March 2019, we conducted in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with trial participants (n = 31) and staff (n = 14) to examine views on the implementation process, participant responses to the interventions and the external factors that may have impacted the implementation and outcomes of the study. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated where necessary, and thematically analyzed using ATLAS-ti and NVivo. Both interventions were perceived to be acceptable and useful by participants and implementers. EPIC-HIV proved challenging to implement as intended because it was difficult to ensure consistent use of earphones, and maintenance of privacy. Some participants struggled to navigate the EPIC-HIV app independently and select stories that appealed to them without support. Some participants stopped exploring the app before the end, resulting in an incomplete use of EPIC-HIV. While the financial incentive was implemented as intended, there were challenges with eligibility. The convenience and privacy of home testing influenced the uptake of HIV testing. Contextual barriers including fear of HIV stigma and disclosure if diagnosed with HIV, and expectations of poor treatment in clinics may have inhibited linkage to care. Financial incentives were relatively straightforward to implement and increased uptake of home-based rapid HIV testing but were not sufficient as a 'stand-alone' intervention. Barriers like fear of stigma should be addressed to facilitate linkage to care.
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.