3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Social Network Strategies to Distribute HIV Self-testing Kits: A Global Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

      Preprint
      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction:

          Social network strategies, in which social networks are utilized to influence individuals or communities, are increasingly being used to deliver human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) interventions to key populations. We summarized and critically assessed existing research on the effectiveness of social network strategies in promoting HIV self-testing (HIVST).

          Methods:

          Using search terms related to social network interventions and HIVST, we searched five databases for trials published between January 1 st, 2010, and June 30 th, 2023. Outcomes included uptake of HIV testing, HIV seroconversion, and linkage to antiretroviral therapy (ART) or HIV Care. We used network meta-analysis to assess the uptake of HIV testing through social network strategies compared with control methods. A pairwise meta-analysis of studies with a comparison arm that reported outcomes was performed to assess relative risks (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

          Results and discussion:

          Among the 3,745 manuscripts identified, 33 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including one quasi-experimental study, 17 RCTs and 15 observational studies. Networks HIVST testing was organized by peers (distributed to known peers, 15 studies), partners (distributed to their sexual partners, 10 studies), and peer educators (distributed to unknown peers, 8 studies). The results showed that all of the three social network distribution strategies enhanced the uptake of HIV testing compared to standard facility-based testing. Among social networks, peer distribution had the highest uptake of HIV testing (79% probability, SUCRA 0.92), followed by partner distribution (72% probability, SUCRA 0.71), and peer educator distribution (66% probability, SUCRA 0.29). Pairwise meta-analysis showed that peer distribution (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.54–3.39, 5 studies) and partner distribution (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05–2.02, 7 studies) also increased the probability of detecting HIV reactivity during testing within the key population when compared to the control. Linkage to ART or HIV Care remained comparable to facility-based testing across the three HIVST distribution strategies.

          Conclusions:

          Network-based HIVST distribution is considered effective in augmenting HIV testing rates and reaching marginalized populations compared to facility-based testing. These strategies can be integrated with the existing HIV care services, to fill the testing gap among key populations globally.

          PROSPERO Number: CRD42022361782

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

          Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

            The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                medRxiv
                MEDRXIV
                medRxiv
                Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
                06 November 2023
                : 2023.11.05.23298135
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Dermatology Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
                [2 ]School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
                [3 ]University of North Carolina Project – China, Guangzhou, China
                [4 ]Faculty of Data Science, City University of Macau, Taipa, Macao SAR, China
                [5 ]School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
                [6 ]Programme in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
                [7 ]Zhuhai Center for Diseases Control and Prevention, Zhuhai, China
                [8 ]Zhuhai Xutong Voluntary Services Center, Zhuhai, China
                [9 ]London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
                Author notes

                Authors’ contributions

                W. T. and J. D. designed the review. C. F., Y. D., and S. H. identified relevant studies and extracted data. Y. X., Y. Z. and H. L. analyzed and interpreted data. All other authors (X. H., D. W., J. T. and W. T.) contributed to data interpretation. S. H. and F. J. wrote the first draft of the article. All authors critically revised the article and approved the final version.

                [§ ] Corresponding author: Weiming Tang, 7 Lujing Road, Dermatology Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510095, China, Phone: 8615920567132, weiming_tang@ 123456med.unc.edu .
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0009-0006-9402-9251
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2804-1181
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9026-707X
                Article
                10.1101/2023.11.05.23298135
                10659482
                37986939
                27e54c87-3004-4f7b-95e8-e39320758b49

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Key Technologies Research and Development Program
                Award ID: 2022YFC2304900-4
                Funded by: National Institute of Health
                Award ID: R34MH119963
                Award ID: 1UG1HD113156-01
                Award ID: 1R25AI170379-01
                Award ID: R01AI158826
                Funded by: National Nature Science Foundation of China
                Award ID: 81903371
                Funded by: CRDF Global
                Award ID: G-202104-67775
                Categories
                Article

                hiv/aids,hiv self-testing,social network,intervention,network meta-analysis,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article