Fig 1.
Positive pathways initiative: Compendium of 21 EBIs With 12 prioritised EBIs.
From the compendium of 21 interventions, 12 were prioritized by an expert panel across six key themes of current HIV practice (interventions shaded under each of the six themes). Prioritization was based on a consideration of feasibility/perceived ease for care centres to trial the EBI. These EBIs are expected to be more widely used, investigated and reported. These 12 EBIs from the Positive Pathways initiative were included in the scope of the review. For details on the development of the compendium, refer to S1 Fig. ART, antiretroviral therapy; EBI, evidence-based intervention; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis.
Table 1.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Fig 2.
PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses. †Comprises the records identified via Medline, Embase, ABI/INFORM, Adis Pharmacoeconomic & Outcomes News, Allied and Complementary Medicine, DH-DATA: Health Administration Medical Toxicology and Environmental Health, Gale Group Health Periodicals Database, Lancet Titles, and the New England Journal of Medicine.
Table 2.
Overview of EBI study characteristics (N = 225; n = 118) [28–145].
Fig 3.
Distribution of EBIs across the evaluation categories (N = 225, n = 118)[28–145].
N represents the total number of EBIs included in this review. n represents the number of publications in which these EBIs are evaluated. ART: antiretroviral therapy; HIV: human immunodeficiency virus.
Table 3.
Classification of implementation outcomes by EBI (N = 183, n = 93) [28, 30, 31, 35, 36, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48–51, 53–58, 60–64, 66–69, 71, 72, 74, 77–80, 83–94, 96, 97, 99–101, 103, 104, 106–109, 111–114, 116–145].
Fig 4.
Distribution of methodologies for the evaluation of implementation (N = 242, n = 93) [28, 30, 31, 35, 36, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48–51, 53–58, 60–64, 66–69, 71, 72, 74, 77–80, 83–94, 96, 97, 99–101, 103, 104, 106–109, 111–114, 116–145].
N represents the total number of implementation outcomes reported. n represents the number of publications in which these implementation outcomes are reported. †The numbers reported do not add up to the total number of reported implementation outcomes (N = 242) as multiple methods could be used to evaluate the implementation outcome.
Table 4.
Overview of frameworks used for the evaluation of implementation (N = 13, n = 8) [35, 46, 61, 64, 104, 107, 133, 136].
Table 5.
Classification of effectiveness outcomes by EBI category (N = 81, n = 48) [29, 30, 32–35, 37–39, 41, 44, 47, 52, 53, 59, 65, 66, 68–71, 73–76, 81, 82, 89, 90, 93, 95, 97, 98, 100, 102, 105, 109, 110, 115–117, 119, 122, 134, 135, 138, 139, 141].