4.4 Article

Concurrency can drive an HIV epidemic by moving R0 across the epidemic threshold

期刊

AIDS
卷 29, 期 9, 页码 1097-1103

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000000676

关键词

concurrent partnerships; HIV; mathematical model; R-0; sub-Saharan Africa

资金

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) [017.009.082]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate whether concurrency can drive an HIV epidemic by moving R-0 across the epidemic threshold. Design and methods: We use a mathematical framework for a dynamic partnership network and the spread of a one-stage infection to study how concurrency is related to the basic reproduction number R-0. Two concurrency indices were used to measure the level of concurrency. The model allows varying the level of concurrency in the population, while other key network properties such as partnership duration and lifetime number of partners are kept fixed. In this way, the effect of concurrency on R-0 is investigated as an isolated phenomenon. Results: We find that an increase in concurrency is associated with an increase of R-0. For plausible parameter sets for MSM populations, R-0 is always above the epidemic threshold of 1. For scenarios that are plausible for sub-Saharan African populations, we show that increasing the level of concurrency can lead to R-0 crossing the epidemic threshold. This occurs already at low levels of concurrency. Only a slight shift of the network structure from a purely monogamous population to one wherein individuals are allowed to have at most two partners is enough for this to happen. Conclusion: Concurrency can be a driver of an HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa for low levels of concurrency, although it is not decisive in MSM populations. A small increase in the level of concurrency can lead to R-0 crossing the epidemic threshold in a sub-Saharan African setting. Copyright (C) 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据