RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Social Network Strategies to Distribute HIV Self-testing Kits: A Global Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.11.05.23298135
DO 10.1101/2023.11.05.23298135
A1 Hu, Siyue
A1 Jing, Fengshi
A1 Fan, Chengxin
A1 Dai, Yifan
A1 Xie, Yewei
A1 Zhou, Yi
A1 Lv, Hang
A1 He, Xi
A1 Wu, Dan
A1 Tucker, Joseph D.
A1 Tang, Weiming
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/06/2023.11.05.23298135.abstract
AB 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 1st, 2010, and June 30th, 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: CRD42022361782Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Key Technologies Research and Development Program (2022YFC2304900-4 to WT), National Institute of Health (R34MH119963, 1UG1HD113156-01, 1R25AI170379-01 and R01AI158826 to WT), National Nature Science Foundation of China (81903371 to WT), and CRDF Global (G-202104-67775 to WT). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript