ArticlePLOS global public health2025
What combination of interventions can optimise HIV prevention for adolescent girls and young women? Cohort analysis of DREAMS participation in urban and rural Kenya.
Article in PLOS global public health, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comprehensive intervention packages are recommended to address multiple sources of HIV risk for adolescent girls and young women (AGYW). DREAMS is a multi-component HIV prevention program designed to reduce HIV incidence among AGYW. We conducted a prospective cohort study among AGYW aged 13-22 years, randomly selected in rural Gem and urban Nairobi informal settlements followed from 2017/2018-2019. AGYW were classified into three groups: (1) invited to DREAMS and received a "complete" package, (2) invited and received a "partial" package, or (3) not invited to DREAMS. We defined the "complete" package as 4-5 primary interventions in Gem and 5 in Nairobi: the "partial" package as 3 specific interventions in Gem and any 3-4 interventions in Nairobi. We used propensity score-adjusted logistic regression to estimate the causal effect of DREAMS on outcomes under three counterfactual scenarios: all AGYW accessed the complete package, all accessed a partial package, or none were invited. In Nairobi, 1081 AGYW were enrolled. By 2019, 26% accessed the complete package and 32% accessed the partial package. Among those receiving the complete package, there was increase in HIV status knowledge(24.8% [95%CI:16.4,32.6]),social support(13.9% [95%CI:3.3,23.6]) and self-efficacy(10.3% [95%CI:0.5,20.4]) and a decrease in the proportion with ≥2 lifetime partners(-8.0% [95%CI:-15.9,0.0]). In Gem, 1171 AGYW were enrolled. By 2019, 24% received the complete package and 21% received the partial package. We found evidence of an increase in HIV status knowledge(10.0% [95%CI:4.5,15.2]), social support(27.2% [95%CI:19.2,35.5]) and a decrease in condomless sex(-9.1% [95%CI:-13.6,-4.1]), and the proportion with ≥2 lifetime partners(-7.6% [95%CI:-12.4,-2.2]) for the complete package. Among those receiving the partial package, there was a decrease in condomless sex(-12.2% [95%CI: -17.0,-6.4]), and an increase in self-efficacy(8.0% [95%CI:0.0,17]). A package of 4-5 primary DREAMS interventions had positive impacts on multiple HIV-related outcomes in both settings. A partial package was effective in Gem, but not in Nairobi, suggesting the need for context-specific intervention strategies.
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.