RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Characterizing network-based HIV testing interventions to guide HIV testing and contact tracing at STI clinics in Lilongwe, Malawi
Maierhofer, C. N., Powers, K. A., Matoga, M. M., Chen, J. S., Jere, E., Massa, C., Mmodzi, P., Bhushan, N. L., Phiri, S., Hoffman, I. F., Lancaster, K. E., Miller, W. C., & Rutstein, S. E. (2023). Characterizing network-based HIV testing interventions to guide HIV testing and contact tracing at STI clinics in Lilongwe, Malawi. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 94(2), 151-159. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000003240
BACKGROUND: Understanding heterogeneity across patients in effectiveness of network-based HIV testing interventions may optimize testing and contact tracing strategies, expediting linkage to therapy or prevention for contacts of persons with HIV (PWH).
SETTING: We analyzed data from a randomized controlled trial of a combination intervention comprising acute HIV testing, contract partner notification (cPN), and social contact referral conducted among PWH at two STI clinics in Lilongwe, Malawi, between 2015 and 2019.
METHODS: We used binomial regression to estimate the effect of the combination intervention vs. passive PN (pPN) on having any: 1) contact, 2) newly HIV-diagnosed contact, and 3) HIV-negative contact present to the clinic, overall and by referring participant characteristics. We repeated analyses comparing cPN alone with pPN.
RESULTS: The combination intervention effect on having any presenting contact was greater among referring women than men (Prevalence Difference (PD): 0.17 vs. 0.10) and among previously vs. newly HIV-diagnosed referring persons (PD: 0.20 vs. 0.11). Differences by sex and HIV diagnosis status were similar in cPN vs. pPN analyses. There were no notable differences in intervention effect on newly HIV-diagnosed referrals by referring participant characteristics. Intervention impact on having HIV-negative presenting contacts was greater among younger vs. older referring persons and among those with >1 vs. ≤1 recent sex partner. Effect differences by age were similar for cPN vs. pPN.
CONCLUSION: Our intervention package may be particularly efficacious in eliciting referrals from women and previously diagnosed persons. When the combination intervention is infeasible, cPN alone may be beneficial for these populations.