Incentive-Based Human Immunodeficiency Virus Screening in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".