↓ Skip to main content

Mapping HIV prevalence using population and antenatal sentinel-based HIV surveys: a multi-stage approach

Overview of attention for article published in Population Health Metrics, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mapping HIV prevalence using population and antenatal sentinel-based HIV surveys: a multi-stage approach
Published in
Population Health Metrics, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12963-015-0055-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel Manda, Lieketseng Masenyetse, Bo Cai, Renate Meyer

Abstract

Sound public health policy on HIV/AIDS depends on accurate prevalence and incidence statistics for the epidemic at both local and national levels. However, HIV statistics derived from epidemiological extrapolation models and data sources have a number of limitations that may lead to under- or overestimation of the epidemic. Thus, adjustment techniques need to be employed to correctly estimate the size of the HIV burden. A multi-stage methodological approach is proposed to obtain HIV statistics at subnational levels by combining nationally population-based and antenatal clinic HIV data. The stages range from computing inverse probability weighting (IPW) for consenting to HIV testing, to HIV status prediction modelling, to the recently developed Bayesian multivariate spatial models to jointly model and map multiple HIV risks. The 2010 Malawi Demographic and Health Survey (MDHS 2010) and the 2010 Malawi Antenatal Clinic (ANC 2010) Sentinel HIV data were used for analyses. Gender, residence, employment, marital status, ethnicity, condom use, and multiple sex partners were considered when estimating HIV prevalence. The observed MDHS 2010 HIV prevalence among people aged 15-49 years was 10.15 %, with 95 % confidence interval (CI) of (9.66, 10.67 %). The ANC 2010 site HIV prevalence had a median of 10.63 %, with 95 % CI ranging from 1.85-24.09 %. The MDHS 2010 prevalence was 10.61 % (9.9, 11.33 %) and 10.19 % (9.69, 10.71 %) using the HIV weight and IPW, respectively. After predicting the HIV status for the non-tested subjects, the overall MDHS 2010 HIV prevalence was 11.05 % (10.80, 11.30 %). Higher HIV prevalence rates were observed in the mostly Southern districts, where poverty and population density levels are also comparatively high. The excess risk attributable to ANC HIV was much larger in the central-eastern and northern parts of the country. Inverse Probability Weighting combined with an appropriate HIV prediction model can be a useful tool to correct for non-response to HIV testing, especially if the number of tested individuals is very minimal at subnational levels. In populations where most know their HIV status, population-based HIV prevalence estimates can be heavily biased. High-coverage antenatal clinics' surveillance HIV data would then be the only important HIV data information sources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 91 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 19%
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Other 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 24 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 19%
Social Sciences 13 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Mathematics 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 30 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 September 2015.
All research outputs
#14,824,070
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Population Health Metrics
#294
of 392 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,611
of 267,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Population Health Metrics
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 392 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,079 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.