ArticleEClinicalMedicine2026
Incentive-based interventions to improve HIV prevention and care continuum: a global systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Incentive-based intervention has been widely implemented for HIV prevention and care, necessitating an urgent evidence-based synthesis of the extensive new evidence. Methods: We conducted a global systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42022368634) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified through MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, Embase, Scopus, and region-specific databases (inception to Sep 10, 2024). Two reviewers independently selected studies using the Covidence online tool. Eligible studies with money-type, non-money type, and lottery type of incentives reporting outcomes along HIV prevention and care continuum were included. Cochrane Risk-of -Bias Tool (ROB) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach were used to assess risk of bias and evidence grading. We pooled risk ratio (RR) using random-effects model versus standard care. Findings: We included 62 RCTs with 118,432 participants from 16 countries, over half of which were published in the recent five years. Compared to standard care, incentive-based intervention was associated with improvements from a 1.8 times increase in HIV testing uptakes (15 studies, 82,327 participants, RR 1.83 [95% CI: 1.31-2.54], I Interpretation: Incentive-based interventions are associated with improved outcomes across the HIV prevention and care continuum, with inconsistency between incentive types, implementation duration, income-levels of countries. The results of its implementation, including outcomes and sustainability, are required to maximize its effectiveness in practice. Funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China and Guangdong Province (Grant No. 82304201 and 2024A1515012123).
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.