4.3 Article

Can population differences explain the contrasting results of the Mwanza, Rakai, and Masaka HIV/sexually transmitted disease intervention trials? A modeling study

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.qai.0000127062.94627.31

关键词

Africa; behavioral interventions; evaluation of program effectiveness; HIV/sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention; mass treatment; mathematical models; syndromic treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether population differences can explain the contrasting impacts on HIV observed in the Mwanza trial of sexually transmitted disease (STD) syndromic treatment (ST), the Rakai trial of STD mass treatment (MT), and the Masaka trial of information, education, and communication (IEC) with and without ST as well as to predict the effectiveness of each intervention strategy in each population. Methods: Stochastic modeling of the transmission of HIV and 6 STDs was used with parameters fitted to demographic, sexual behavior, and epidemiological data from the trials and general review of STD/HIV biology. Results: The baseline trial populations could be simulated by assuming higher risk behavior in Uganda compared with Mwanza in the 1980s, followed by reductions in risk behavior in Uganda preceding the trials. In line with trial observations, the projected HIV impacts were larger for the ST intervention in Mwanza than for the NIT intervention in Rakai or the IEC and IEC + ST interventions in Masaka. All 4 simulated intervention strategies were more effective in reducing incidence of HIV infection in Mwanza than in either Rakai or Masaka. Conclusions: Population differences in sexual behavior, curable STD rates, and HIV epidemic stage can explain most of the contrast in HIV impact observed between the 3 trials. This study supports the hypothesis that STD management is an effective HIV prevention strategy in populations with a high prevalence of curable STDs, particularly in an early HIV epidemic.

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

4.3
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