ArticleGlobal epidemiology2026
Targeted HIV testing modalities in Zimbabwe: Achieving effectiveness through a revised model.
Article in Global epidemiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: HIV testing remains central to epidemic control, but awareness of HIV status in Zimbabwe remains below UNAIDS targets. We evaluated a targeted HIV testing model using a risk-screening tool to triage clients for same-day provider-initiated HIV testing, while routing screen-negative clients to HIV self-testing. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods implementation evaluation across eight provinces from April 2021 to June 2022. Thirteen candidate screening questions were evaluated in 7825 clients and reduced to five domains for assessment of the final combined rule in 2116 complete-case assessment records. The rule screened clients last tested at least 3 months previously, or never tested, who reported at least one additional risk or symptom criterion. We also conducted 20 healthcare-worker interviews and reconstructed the index-testing cascade for 6308 index cases. Results: The final combined rule achieved 94.1% sensitivity, 19.5% specificity, 9.2% positive predictive value, 97.4% negative predictive value, 18.0% testing volume reduction, and a number needed to test of 11. In the index-testing cascade, 66.4% of index cases were offered partner testing; 5080 contacts were elicited, 78.6% were tested, 43.5% tested HIV positive, and 91.8% initiated antiretroviral therapy. Positivity was associated with anonymous tracing (aOR 8.46, 95% CI 3.37-22.75), ≤7-day testing (2.78, 2.44-3.18), male sex (3.09, 2.74-3.49), and first-time testing (1.65, 1.43-1.91). Conclusion: The targeted model maintained high screening sensitivity while modestly reducing same-day provider-initiated testing volume, and index testing achieved high positivity and ART linkage among tested contacts. The screening rule should be interpreted as a triage mechanism rather than a diagnostic discriminator, while implementation of the broader model requires timely contact tracing, differentiated testing options, and reliable linkage systems.
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.