Back

Who does tracing work for? Characteristics of clients successfully re-engaged in ART care in sub-Saharan Africa after a tracing intervention: a systematic review

Marri, A. R.; Morgan, A.; Benade, M.; Flynn, D.; Maskew, M.; Mutanda, N.; Rosen, S.

2025-09-18 hiv aids
10.1101/2025.09.16.25335926 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTracing HIV treatment clients who have interrupted or disengaged from care is a common, guideline-recommended practice globally. Most guidelines prioritize tracing based on clinical condition or HIV transmission risk, not likelihood of client traits that may affect return to care after tracing. Targeting tracing to those most likely to return could increase efficiency substantially. We conducted a systematic review to identify characteristics of clients most likely to return after tracing. MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science for studies published between 1/2004 and 7/2025 that reported outcomes of tracing interventions in sub-Saharan Africa. Eligible studies reported characteristics of clients who interrupted care, were eligible for a tracing intervention with the intent to return them to care (i.e. not solely research to determine client outcomes after interruption) and were subsequently traced or had tracing attempted. Our primary outcome was client characteristics associated with return to care after tracing, compared to those who did not return after tracing or attempted tracing. ResultsWe identified 13,208 articles; 9 met the inclusion criteria. Older age and female sex were the most consistent predictors of return after tracing. Earlier tracing (relative to last missed visit) was associated with return in 3 studies; 1 found the opposite. Frequent contact attempts, rural location, and psychosocial factors (stigma, disclosure) were also associated with return. Clinical characteristics (CD4 counts and WHO stage) showed mixed or null associations with tracing effectiveness. ConclusionCharacteristics of clients who return to care after tracing, compared to those who are traced or for whom tracing is attempted and do not return, are rarely reported, making it difficult to evaluate this intervention. Using a "high-benefit" approach to targeting tracing--i.e. prioritizing based on likely benefit generated by a successful response, rather than clinical need--may potentially improve the efficiency of HIV programming.

Published in PLOS Global Public Health (predicted rank #29) · training set

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.7%
2
Journal of the International AIDS Society
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.5%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 12%
14.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
AIDS and Behavior
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.4%
5
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.2%
6
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.7%
7
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.6%
8
AIDS
31 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
9
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
10
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
11
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
13
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
14
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
15
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
16
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
17
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
18
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
19
Sexually Transmitted Infections
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
20
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
21
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
22
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
23
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%