ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Clients' satisfaction with HIV differentiated service delivery models and associated factors in sub-Saharan Africa: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. 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.
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
backgroundDifferentiated Service Delivery (DSD) models for HIV are antiretroviral therapy (ART) mechanisms for stable people living with HIV (PLHIV) and are meant to be patient-centered to achieve treatment goals. One key element to achieve treatment goals is clients' satisfaction with DSD models. Despite extensive implementation and scale-up of DSD models in sub-Saharan Africa, satisfaction levels remain unclear. Thus far, no comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis regarding clients' satisfaction level with DSD models and associated factors has been published. Therefore, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis (1) to establish the level of clients' satisfaction with DSD models, (2) to determine which specific DSD models clients are most likely to be satisfied with, and (3) to identify factors associated with clients' satisfaction with DSD models.
methodsAll eligible studies reporting empirical evidence will be identified using a predetermined search strategy in several electronic databases such as EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest. Observational studies that have been conducted in sub-Saharan African countries regardless of the year of publication will be included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. We will conduct this review and meta-analysis according to the guidelines by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). A random effects model will be used to conduct the meta-analysis using Stata 19.5 software. Heterogeneity will be assessed by using Cochran's Q test and the I DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this review and meta-analysis will be the first to be conducted in the sub-Saharan Africa region to synthesize empirical evidence regarding clients' satisfaction with DSD models and associated factors, as well as identify common DSD models most clients are likely to be satisfied with. Collection of existing evidence will improve and guide implementation, scale-up, and adoption of different DSD models. Such knowledge can inform program managers and implementers which DSD models are likely to result in desired HIV treatment outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251085833.
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.