Incentive-Based Human Immunodeficiency Virus Screening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The majority of new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections that occur worldwide are in sub-Saharan Africa. While recent gains have been made in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), substantial disparities in sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections (STBBI) screening and treatment still exist between LMIC and high-income countries. In addition to increasing STBBI screening uptake, providing incentives for STBBI screening may decrease perceived stigma associated with STBBI screening. METHODS: Our review was conducted as part of a larger systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. This review focuses on incentivized STBBI screening in LMIC; high-income countries were excluded. Articles were excluded if their primary focus was on children and youth (younger than 16 years), results retrieval, treatment, behavioral change only, behavior intention, treatment adherence, or provider incentive. RESULTS: The search yielded 6219 abstracts. The search and selection criteria included all STBBI; however, only articles examining incentivized HIV screening met our inclusion criteria. Five articles representing 4 distinct studies from South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe were included, all of which focused on incentivized HIV screening. Populations screened included the following: men, first-time testers, population-based surveillance program families, and insurance health plan members. Incentive structures varied widely and incentives were mainly food vouchers, lottery prizes, or household items. CONCLUSIONS: Our review was conducted to determine if patient incentives increase STBBI test uptake in LMIC. Overall, incentives were associated with an increase in HIV screening uptake. Most studies included focused solely on men. There is a significant void in understanding STBBI incentive-based screening outside of this context and in complex populations who should be targeted in incentivized HIV screening. Incentives appear most effective when developed specific to context and target population. Further research is needed to analyze incentivized screening across similar study designs, to evaluate long-term effectiveness, and to explore the ethical implications of incentivized care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».