Trial reportBMC health services research2026
"We carried her in a wheelbarrow to the clinic": process evaluation of the AMETHIST intervention combining microplanning with self-help groups to improve HIV prevention and treatment among female sex workers in Zimbabwe.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Adapted Microplanning to Eliminate Transmission of HIV in Sex Transactions (AMETHIST) randomised controlled trial tested a combination of microplanning (peer-led risk-differentiated support) and self-help groups (SHGs) to reduce the proportion of female sex workers (FSW) at risk of acquiring or transmitting HIV infection in Zimbabwe. The trial found overall high levels of FSW engagement with treatment which further improved in intervention sites. HIV prevention uptake, however, was low and not affected by AMETHIST.
methodsWe conducted a mixed methods process evaluation to assess implementation, explore FSW perceptions, and understand the trial’s outcomes. We integrated routine programme statistics, qualitative data, and an endline respondent driven sampling survey among 4444 FSW to consider fidelity of implementation, feasibility of delivery, and acceptability. We also examined whether the intervention triggered changes hypothesised in its programme theory.
resultsMicroplanning was successfully introduced, with peers effectively providing risk-differentiated support. Early difficulties related to mapping sex work “hotspots,”, maintaining contact with mobile FSW, and some resistance to regular risk assessments, but double the number of new FSW registered at intervention clinics compared to comparison sites (8443 v 3824), and significantly more HIV tests were performed (11882 vs. 6808). SARS-COV2 disrupted the intervention, particularly SHG. Fewer groups were established than planned, and lockdowns prevented group members meeting in person and participating in collective activities. Nonetheless, 30 of 65 established SHG remained active after two years, and more SHG members registered with clinics than those reached by microplanning alone (82 cv 76% p,0.001). Increased service use did not increase effective prevention. Over 80% FSW reported condomless sex and PrEP adherence was insufficient to achieve protection. Qualitative data show FSW prefer to “wait” until HIV seroconversion before taking daily medication. They feared conflation of ART with PrEP and resulting stigma. Concerns about side effects and immediate financial priorities undermined perceived future benefits of PrEP and condoms.
conclusionsStrengthening HIV prevention should consider how to improve FSW’s hope and agency alongside reducing stigma and supporting collective rights and action.
trial registrationThe Pan African Clinical Trials Registry registered the trial 2nd July 2020 (PACTR202007818077777) which was after randomisation but before any research data were collected.
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.