Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 May;28(5):e26458.
doi: 10.1002/jia2.26458.

The key design features and effectiveness of social network interventions for HIV testing and linkage services in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The key design features and effectiveness of social network interventions for HIV testing and linkage services in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Madalo Mukoka et al. J Int AIDS Soc. 2025 May.

Abstract

Introduction: HIV remains a global health challenge with a reported 39 million people living with HIV (PLHIV) in 2022. Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and the Pacific are home to 82% of PLHIV, where limited access to healthcare resources underscores the urgency of innovative strategies to combat the epidemic effectively. Social network interventions (SNIs) hold promise for improving HIV testing and linkage services by engaging populations at greatest risk. This review evaluates the key design features and effectiveness of SNIs for HIV testing and linkage in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods: We searched four databases (Medline, Embase, Global Health, Web of Science) for the period from 1st January 2003 until 16th June 2023. A combination of the terms "Social Network," "HIV," "testing" and "linkage" with an LMIC filter was used. We included interventional study designs that compared an SNI for HIV testing and/or linkage to care against non-network comparator approaches. Narrative synthesis and random effects meta-analyses were conducted to synthesize the results.

Results: Of the 6763 records, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria; eight were randomized controlled trials, and five were non-randomized designs. Nine studies engaged key populations. The most common strategy involved recruiting and training seeds, who then delivered HIV services to network members. The use of networks varied significantly across the papers. The network approaches used were induction (n = 11), alteration (n = 1) and a combination of individual and segmentation approaches (n = 1). The pooled estimates showed that SNIs had a modest effect on the uptake of HIV testing RR 1.12 [95% CI 1.08-1.17) but the directionality of effect for the proportion newly diagnosed positive (RR 0.88 [95% CI 0.74-1.04]) and linkage to care (RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.86-1.08]) was towards the null.

Discussion: SNIs improved the uptake of HIV testing and exhibit important variability in their design.

Conclusions: There is a need for more studies designed to capture the complex relational dynamics of network interventions and to provide strong evidence on their isolated effects. Additionally, it is necessary to expand the use of network approaches to other priority populations.

Prospero number: CRD42023434770.

Keywords: HIV care continuum; LMIC; intervention; key and vulnerable populations; linkage to care; social networks.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
A forest plot showing effect of the social network intervention (experimental) versus non‐network intervention (control) for outcome proportion testing for HIV. CI, confidence interval; RR, risk ratio.
Figure 3
Figure 3
A forest plot showing effect of the social network intervention (experimental) versus non‐network intervention (control) for outcome of the proportion of newly diagnosed cases. CI, confidence interval; RR, risk ratio.
Figure 4
Figure 4
A forest plot showing effect of the social network intervention (experimental) versus non‐network intervention (control) for the outcome of linkage to HIV care grouped by income stratification. CI, confidence interval; RR, risk ratio.

References

    1. The Urgency of Now: AIDS at a Crossroads — 2024 global AIDS update [Internet]. [cited 2024 Jul 22]. Available from: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2024/global‐aids‐update‐2024
    1. Tracking Universal Health Coverage 2023 Global Monitoring Report. World Health Organization; 2023.
    1. Kumwenda MK, Corbett EL, Chikovore J, Phiri M, Mwale D, Choko AT, et al. Discordance, disclosure and normative gender roles: barriers to couple testing within a community‐level HIV self‐testing intervention in urban Blantyre, Malawi. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(8):2491–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ahmed S, Autrey J, Katz IT, Fox MP, Rosen S, Onoya D, et al. Why do people living with HIV not initiate treatment? A systematic review of qualitative evidence from low‐ and middle‐income countries. Soc Sci Med. 2018;213:72–84. - PMC - PubMed
    1. MacPherson P, Corbett EL, Makombe SD, van Oosterhout JJ, Manda E, Choko AT, et al. Determinants and consequences of failure of linkage to antiretroviral therapy at primary care level in Blantyre, Malawi: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e44794. - PMC - PubMed