Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40569896›Full record

ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2025

Developing and evaluating a community-driven intervention to promote uptake of HIV and contraception services among students enrolled in colleges and universities in Zimbabwe.

Oppah Kuguyo, Lindiwe Mancitshana, Collin Mangenah, Mary K Tumushime, Nancy Ruhode, Edward Matsikire, Jane Kalweo, Fern Terris-Prestholt, Frances M Cowan, Euphemia Lindelwe Sibanda

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. HIV Post Exposure Prophylaxis: prospects, opportunities and challenges.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Oppah KuguyoCentre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR), Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6347-1086
Lindiwe MancitshanaCentre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Collin MangenahCentre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Mary K TumushimeDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Nancy RuhodeCentre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR), Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2201-7941
Edward MatsikireCentre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR), Harare, Zimbabwe.
Jane KalweoUNAIDS Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Fern Terris-PrestholtUNAIDS, Geneva, Switzerland.
Frances M CowanCentre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR), Harare, Zimbabwe.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3087-4422
Euphemia Lindelwe SibandaCentre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR), Harare, Zimbabwe.

Funding

UNAIDS, Geneva, Switzerland
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is a growing appreciation that community-led interventions are key to sustaining the HIV response and achieving HIV prevention and treatment targets. Together with young people in colleges/universities and Ministry of Health (MOH), we developed and evaluated a student-led intervention for promoting the uptake of HIV self-testing (HIVST), post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) and emergency contraception (EC) among college/university students.

methodsOver 3 months, in biweekly study team meetings, two workshops with students, two meetings with MOH, and a joint workshop with students, MOH and relevant stakeholders, we co-developed an intervention for peer-led promotion/distribution of HIVST, PEP, EC and condoms. The agreed intervention was piloted in three Zimbabwean colleges/universities from December 2023 to February 2024. Student peers distributed HIVST and condoms directly, and vouchers for PEP and EC that were redeemed at college/nearby clinics. During co-development, students strongly preferred peer distribution of all commodities but this was restricted by regulatory requirements for PEP and EC. Peer distributors (n = 14) kept daily audio diaries of their experiences. In-depth interviews were held with students (n = 18), peer distributors (n = 11) and key informants (n = 12) to explore views/preferences, with participant observations and four focus group discussions to provide additional insights. We determined the intervention development and implementation costs.

resultsPeer-led distribution of HIVST, PEP and EC to college/university students was acceptable, feasible, appropriate and generally implemented as intended. PEP and EC acceptability was driven by high HIV and pregnancy risk among students, who had no easy access to services. Of 100 PEP and 257 EC vouchers distributed, 30% and 40% were redeemed, respectively. The main barrier to PEP and EC uptake was moral judgement against premarital sex, which affected female students more. Judgemental health worker attitudes also limited uptake of PEP and EC. EC voucher redemption among female students was lower versus males, aOR = 0.4 (95% CI = 0.2-0.8), p = 0.019. Redemption was also higher at the college where the nearby clinic could be accessed discreetly. Total cost of the intervention per student was $14.57 (cross-institution range: $7.26-$35.52).

conclusionsStudent-led distribution of HIVST, PEP and EC was feasible, acceptable and affordable. Making the intervention more community-driven according to the 2024 WHO PEP guidelines will likely achieve great impact.

Indexed as

ContraceptionHIV InfectionsStudentsAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleUniversitiesYoung AdultZimbabwecommunity‐drivenHIV preventionPEPself‐caresexual and reproductive healthyoung people

Identifiers

PMID40569896
PMCPMC12231659

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.