2019
DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/apwcy
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using social networks to understand and overcome implementation barriers in the global HIV response

Abstract: Despite the development of several efficacious HIV prevention and treatment methods in the past decades, HIV continues to spread globally. Uptake of interventions is non-randomly distributed across populations, and such inequality is socially patterned both statically (due to homophily) and dynamically (due to social selection and influence). Social network analysis (SNA) methods, including egocentric, sociocentric, and respondent-driven sampling, provide tools to measure mostat-risk populations, to understand… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 97 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This improvement is comparable to the number of additional cases found per index case by using electronic communication methods such as e-mail, dating websites, and text messaging, compared with traditional contact-tracing methods such as using telephone and postal address (5). These ndings cohere with ndings that social network approaches improve HIV prevention interventions with hard-to-reach populations by identifying likely sexual network members (17,18).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%
“…This improvement is comparable to the number of additional cases found per index case by using electronic communication methods such as e-mail, dating websites, and text messaging, compared with traditional contact-tracing methods such as using telephone and postal address (5). These ndings cohere with ndings that social network approaches improve HIV prevention interventions with hard-to-reach populations by identifying likely sexual network members (17,18).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 69%