ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2024
Community contexts and knowledge: accountability, leadership and meaningful involvement of communities in Programme Science.
Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 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.
- A roadmap to scale up person-centred care in the HIV response: recommendations from a global consensus-building process.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2025Article
- Programme Science: a route to transformative change to improve population-level impact for global HIV and sexually transmitted infections.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA Programme Science approach that prioritizes populations who will benefit most and ensuring resources are allocated to programmes that meet the needs of those populations will bring an equity focus to research. Gay men and other men who have sex with men, people who use drugs, sex workers of all genders, and trans and gender-diverse people, defined by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) as key populations, have been disproportionately impacted since the start of the HIV pandemic. Through documenting community experiences from global key population-led networks, the authors explore the potential value and impact of community-led organizations and service delivery as critical components in effective HIV and Sexually Transmitted infections (STI) programmes. DISCUSSION: Through advocacy and research interventions, global key population networks have identified barriers against scaling up interventions for criminalized and marginalized communities, as well as highlighted solutions. The authors examine some of the current barriers to meaningful involvement of communities and the scaling up of community-led programmes that need to be addressed if Programme Science is to maintain an equity lens and the needs of key populations are to be met and highlight the need to make visible community engagement and participation in embedded research and Programme Science.
conclusionsThe Programme Science approach provides an important opportunity to understand practical issues that will increase effective coverage in the implementation of public health and other interventions, which will require the prioritizing of key populations and their priorities in HIV and STI programmes. It will require extensive time and work to build relationships, increase capacity and share power. Where this has already happened, it has resulted in positive outcomes, including better health outcomes, reduced stigma, increased agency for key populations, and built community-led organizations and responses.
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.