ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2025
Approaches used to monitor the effectiveness of community-led monitoring programmes: a scoping review to inform HIV programmes.
Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCommunity-led monitoring (CLM) for HIV is a technique implemented by local community-led organizations and groups that systematically gather data about HIV services to advocate for improvement. This review was conducted to explore fields other than HIV where CLM or similar approaches have been used, and to identify methods and tools used to monitor the effectiveness of such approaches.
methodsUsing a systematic search in PubMed®, Embase® and Web of Science™, we identified publications describing community involvement in the monitoring of public services. We searched for English-language, peer-reviewed articles and abstracts published from inception until 7 March 2024 with search terms covering two broad areas: "community-led monitoring" and "impact/effectiveness." We double-screened titles and abstracts and single-extracted data on publication type, region and geographic location, field, programme goals, the methods used to monitor the programme, indicators used for monitoring and the frequency with which the programme was monitored. In addition, a web search was conducted to identify relevant grey literature.
resultsWe identified 282 records, of which 28 publications were included. Additionally, 24 documents were included through a search of grey literature. Seven peer-reviewed publications related to HIV CLM, 10 were from other health services and 11 were from monitoring of natural resources. No peer-reviewed publications documented results from routine evaluations of CLM programmes or described a monitoring framework for CLM. Common themes identified across different fields were the role of multi-stakeholder collaboration as an enabling factor for community monitoring, challenges in sustainability due to fragmented funding and the inability of existing evaluation approaches to capture the longer-term impact of community monitoring. DISCUSSION: Having a robust monitoring and evaluation system is essential for improving CLM programme operations and demonstrating impact. However, demonstrating the impact of community-led advocacy efforts is complex and more research is needed to assess longer-term impacts. Monitoring of locally led adaptation programmes for climate resilience offers useful examples of impact assessments.
conclusionsThe synthesized findings and lessons from this scoping review have been used, along with consultations with CLM implementers, to develop a guide to monitor outcomes and impact of HIV CLM programmes.
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.