Suchergebnisse

Existing research on civil war interventions provides contradicting. - evidence about the role that the media plays in affecting the likelihood. - of intervention. To date, studies often focus on specific cases. - (frequently by the United States) leaving it unclear whether the. - media's influence extends more broadly. In this article we examine. - this question cross-nationally and argue that we need to account. - for the possibility that interventions also lead to increases in media. - coverage. We test our hypotheses using cross-national data on civil. - war interventions and media coverage. These data include a new. - measure of media coverage of 73 countries experiencing civil wars. - between 1982 and 1999. These data allow us to determine whether. - media coverage is more likely to drive leaders' decisions or follow. - them. Toward this end we employ a two-stage conditional maximum. - likelihood model to control for potential endogeneity between. - media attention and interventions. The results suggest a reciprocal. - positive relationship between media attention and civil conflict interventions. . - Specifically, an increase of one standard deviation. - in media coverage raises the probability of intervention 68%. (International Interactions (London)/ FUB)

AbstractIntroductionAssisted partner services (APS) is an effective strategy for increasing HIV testing, new diagnosis, and linkage to care among sexual partners of people living with HIV (PLWH). APS can be resource intensive as it requires community tracing to locate each partner named and offer them testing. There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of offering HIV self‐testing (HIVST) as an option for partner testing within APS.MethodsWe conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial comparing provider‐delivered HIV testing (Standard APS) versus offering partners the option of provider‐delivered testing or HIVST (APS+HIVST) at 24 health facilities in Western Kenya. Facilities were randomized 1:1 and we conducted intent‐to‐treat analyses using Poisson generalized linear mixed models to estimate intervention impact on HIV testing, new HIV diagnoses, and linkage to care. All models accounted for clustering at the clinic level and new diagnoses and linkage models were adjusted for individual‐level age, sex, and income a priori.ResultsFrom March to December 2021, 755 index clients received APS and named 5054 unique partners. Among these, 1408 partners reporting a prior HIV diagnosis were not eligible for HIV testing and were excluded from analyses. Of the remaining 3646 partners, 96.9% were successfully contacted for APS and tested for HIV: 2111 (97.9%) of 2157 in the APS+HIVST arm and 1422 (95.5%) of 1489 in the Standard APS arm. In the APS+HIVST arm, 84.6% (1785/2111) tested via HIVST and 15.4% (326/2111) received provider‐delivered testing. Overall, 16.7% of the 3533 who tested were newly diagnosed with HIV (APS+HIVST = 357/2111 [16.9%]; Standard APS = 232/1422 [16.3%]). Of the 589 partners who were newly diagnosed, 90.7% were linked to care (APS+HIVST = 309/357 [86.6%]; Standard APS = 225/232 [97.0%]). There were no significant differences between the two arms in HIV testing (relative risk [RR]: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.96–1.10), new HIV diagnoses (adjusted RR [aRR]: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.76–1.39) or linkage to care (aRR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.74–1.06).ConclusionsThere were no differences between APS+HIVST and Standard APS, demonstrating that integrating HIVST into APS continues to be an effective strategy for identifying PLWH by successfully reaching and HIV testing >95% of elicited partners, newly diagnosing with HIV one in six of those tested, >90% of whom were linked to care.Clinical Trial NumberNCT04774835

AbstractIntroductionAssisted partner services (APS), or exposure notification and HIV testing for sexual partners of persons diagnosed HIV positive (index clients), is recommended by the World Health Organization. Most APS literature focuses on outcomes among index clients and their partners. There is little data on the benefits of providing APS to partners of partners diagnosed with HIV.MethodsWe utilized data from a large‐scale APS implementation project across 31 facilities in western Kenya from 2018 to 2022. Females testing HIV positive at facilities were offered APS; those who consented provided contact information for all male sexual partners in the last 3 years. Male partners were notified of their potential HIV exposure and offered HIV testing services (HTS). Males newly testing positive were also offered APS and asked to provide contact information for their female partners in the last 3 years. Female partners of male partners (FPPs) were provided exposure notification and HTS. All participants with HIV were followed up at 12 months post‐enrolment to assess linkage‐to antiretroviral treatment (ART) and viral suppression. We compared HIV positivity, demographics and linkage outcomes among female index clients and FPPs.ResultsOverall, 5708 FPPs were elicited from male partners, of whom 4951 received HTS through APS (87% coverage); 291 FPPs newly tested HIV positive (6% yield), an additional 1743 (35.2%) reported a prior HIV diagnosis, of whom 99% were on ART at baseline. At 12 months follow‐up, most FPPs were taking ART (92%) with very few adverse events: <1% reported intimate partner violence or reported relationship dissolution. FPPs were more likely than female index clients to report HIV risk behaviours including no condom use at last sex (45% vs. 30%) and multiple partners (38% vs. 19%).ConclusionsProviding HIV testing via APS to FPP is a safe and effective strategy to identify newly diagnosed females and achieve high linkage and retention to ART and can be an efficient means of identifying HIV cases in the era of declining HIV incidence. The high proportion of FPPs reporting HIV risk behaviours suggests APS may help interrupt community HIV transmission via increased knowledge of HIV status and linkage to treatment.

AbstractIntroductionWe have previously demonstrated that assisted partner services (aPS) increases HIV testing and case finding among partners of persons living with HIV (PLHIV) in a cluster randomized trial in Kenya. However, the efficacy of aPS may vary across populations. In this analysis, we explore differences in aPS efficacy by characteristics of index participants.MethodsEighteen HIV testing sites were randomized to immediate versus 6‐week delayed aPS. Participants were PLHIV (or index participants) and their sexual partners. Partners of index participants were contacted for HIV testing and linked to care if HIV positive. Primary outcomes were the number of partners per index participant who: 1) tested for HIV, 2) tested HIV positive and 3) enrolled in HIV care. We used generalized estimating equations to assess differences in aPS efficacy by region, testing location, gender, age and knowledge of HIV status.ResultsFrom 2013 to 2015, the study enrolled 1119 index participants, 625 of whom were in the immediate group. These index participants named 1286 sexual partners. Immediate aPS was more efficacious than delayed aPS in promoting HIV testing among partners in high compared to low HIV prevalence regions (Nyanza incidence rate ratio (IRR) 7.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.4, 9.6 vs. Nairobi/Central IRR 3.4 95% CI 2.3, 4.8). Higher rates of partner HIV testing were also observed for index participants in rural/peri‐urban compared to urban sites (IRR 6.6; 95% CI 4.5, 9.6 vs. IRR 3.5 95% CI 2.5, 5.0 respectively), for female versus male index participants (IRR 5.8 95% CI 4.2, 7.9 vs. IRR 3.7; 95% CI 2.4, 5.8 respectively) and for newly diagnosed versus known HIV‐positive index participants (IRR 6.0 95% CI 4.2, 8.7 vs. IRR 3.3; 95% CI 2.0, 7.7 respectively). Providing aPS to female versus male index participants also had a significantly higher HIV case finding rate (IRR 9.1; 95% CI 4.0, 20.9 vs. IRR 3.2 95% CI 1.7, 6.0 respectively.)ConclusionsWhile it is known that aPS promotes increases in HIV testing and case finding, this is the first study to demonstrate significant differences in aPS efficacy across characteristics of the index participant. Understanding these differences and their drivers will be critical as aPS is brought to scale in order to ensure all PLHIV have access to these services.