ArticlePloS one2025
Integrating status-neutral and targeted HIV testing in Zimbabwe: A complementary strategy.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionZimbabwe exclusively implemented targeted HIV testing until 2022 when Status-neutral testing was embraced. Whilst targeted testing aims to expand access and uptake of testing among high-risk individuals, status-neutral testing emphasizes post-test linkage to prevention and treatment services. To address how the two concepts relate in practice, we explored how status-neutral and targeted testing concepts correlate, in developing a double-edged strategy for effective case identification and linkage to prevention and treatment.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study on 36 multi-stage sampled sites across 4/10 provinces of Zimbabwe. A national screening algorithm was used to determine patient risk profiling and eligibility for testing. Screened-out patients were offered HIVST. Both screened and non-screened patients were tested and analysed for positivity ratios and linkage to post-test services. Epicollect5 was used to collect data and analysed using EpiData software and Stata. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted at a 5% significance level.
resultsOf 23,058 HIV tests done, females constituted 55% (n = 12,698), whilst 63.5% (n = 14,650) were retested. Through screening, at-risk patients contributed 75.1% to the overall positivity (1,296/1,727), from 66% (n = 15,289) of the total HIV tests conducted. All screened-out patients were non-reactive on HIVST: 1,182/1,182. The 45-49-year category was 3.6 times more likely to test positive (a95%CI:2.67,4.90). Males were 3.09 times more likely to test positive in adjusted analysis (a95%CI: 2.74, 3.49). First tests were 65% more likely to test HIV positive (a95%CI: 1.43, 1.91) whilst screened patients were 3.89 times more likely to link to HIV prevention services (a95%CI: 3.05, 4.97), against 25.5% (n = 1,871) linkage among patients not screened.
conclusionThe complementarity of the status-neutral and targeted testing approaches is evident from our results. By prioritizing high-risk individuals for testing and ensuring comprehensive linkage to both prevention and treatment services, these integrated strategies can effectively identify and manage people living with HIV. This combined approach optimizes resource use, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, and contributes to improved health outcomes and reduced HIV transmission rates.
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.