| Title |
HIV Epidemic Appraisals for Assisting in the Design of Effective Prevention Programmes: Shifting the Paradigm Back to Basics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0032324 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sharmistha Mishra, Sema K. Sgaier, Laura H. Thompson, Stephen Moses, B. M. Ramesh, Michel Alary, David Wilson, James F. Blanchard |
| Abstract |
To design HIV prevention programmes, it is critical to understand the temporal and geographic aspects of the local epidemic and to address the key behaviours that drive HIV transmission. Two methods have been developed to appraise HIV epidemics and guide prevention strategies. The numerical proxy method classifies epidemics based on current HIV prevalence thresholds. The Modes of Transmission (MOT) model estimates the distribution of incidence over one year among risk-groups. Both methods focus on the current state of an epidemic and provide short-term metrics which may not capture the epidemiologic drivers. Through a detailed analysis of country and sub-national data, we explore the limitations of the two traditional methods and propose an alternative approach. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Kenya | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 71 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 18% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 21% |
| Unknown | 11 | 14% |