Enhancing national prevention and treatment services for sex workers in Zimbabwe: a process evaluation of the SAPPH-IRe trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Targeted HIV interventions for female sex workers (FSW) combine biomedical technologies, behavioural change and community mobilization with the aim of empowering FSW and improving prevention and treatment. Understanding how to deliver combined interventions most effectively in sub-Saharan Africa is critical to the HIV response. The Sisters' Antiretroviral Programme for Prevention of HIV: an Integrated Response (SAPPH-Ire) randomized controlled trial in Zimbabwe tested an intervention to improve FSW engagement with HIV services. After 2 years, results of the trial showed no significant difference between study arms in proportion of FSW with HIV viral load ≥1000 copies/ml as steep declines occurred in both. We present the results of a process evaluation aiming to track the intervention's implementation, assess its feasibility and accessibility, and situate trial results within the national HIV policy context. We conducted a mixed methods study using data from routine programme statistics, qualitative interviews with participants and respondent driven surveys. The intervention proved feasible to deliver and was acceptable to FSW and providers. Intervention clinics saw more new FSW (4082 vs 2754), performed over twice as many HIV tests (2606 vs 1151) and nearly double the number of women were diagnosed with HIV (1042 vs 546). Community mobilization meetings in intervention sites also attracted higher numbers. We identified some gaps in programme fidelity: offering pre-exposure prophylaxis took time to engage FSW, viral load monitoring was not performed, and ratio of peer educators to FSW was lower than intended. During the trial, reaching FSW with HIV testing and treatment became a national priority, leading to increasing attendance at both intervention and control clinics. Throughout Zimbabwe, antiretroviral therapy coverage improved and HIV-stigma declined. Zimbabwe's changing HIV policy context appeared to contribute to positive improvements across the HIV care continuum for all FSW over the course of the trial. More intense community-based interventions for FSW may be needed to make further gains.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".