ArticleBMJ global health2026
Decomposing gender gaps in HIV service outcomes.
Article in BMJ global health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study uses Population-based HIV Impact Assessments survey data to examine factors associated with gender disparities in HIV outcomes. The analysis examined the share of adult males and females living with HIV who are aware of their status, are on treatment and have achieved viral load suppression across 13 African countries. The study then used the Blinder-Oaxaca statistical method to decompose these gaps into three core elements: (1) the part caused by observed differences in characteristics between the two groups, (2) the part caused by unobservable differences between the groups, often attributed to structural barriers and (3) the unexplained portion of the gap. The study then compares how these gaps and decompositions have changed over time. The model confirms that males have poorer outcomes than females across all three indicators. Factors contributing to these gender disparities include individual-level characteristics such as age, education and wealth, as well as structural barriers such as stigma, restrictive gender norms and lower health service utilisation among men. Although males generally possess more protective individual-level characteristics, these structural barriers offset their advantages, resulting in poorer outcomes across all indicators. The gap in service outcomes between men and women has decreased over time, with structural or cultural barriers showing the greatest improvement. Additional investment in and evaluation of male-friendly services is essential to understand what interventions have contributed to decreasing this gap. This knowledge should be used to inform future investments to support individual-level treatment outcomes and prevent new infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.