Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 13;19(3):e0298387. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298387

Estimates of the prevalence of male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa from 2010–2023—A systematic review and meta-analysis

Basant Elsayed 1,#, Mohamed Elmarasi 1,#, Ruvarashe J Madzime 2, Lovemore Mapahla 2, Menatalla M S ElBadway 1, Tawanda Chivese 1,*
Editor: Taurayi A Tafuma3
PMCID: PMC10936832  PMID: 38478528

Abstract

Background

Male circumcision (MC) is a key part of the package of interventions to prevent HIV, the biggest health challenge in sub-Saharan Africa.

Objective

To estimate the male circumcision prevalence and to evaluate the progress towards meeting WHO targets in sub-Saharan Africa during the period 2010–2023.

Methods

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published during the period 2010–2023. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar, WHO and the Demographic and Health Survey for reports on MC prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa. MC prevalence was synthesized using inverse-variance heterogeneity models, heterogeneity using I2 statistics and publication bias using funnel plots.

Results

A total of 53 studies were included. The overall prevalence during the study period was 45.9% (95% CI 32.3–59.8), with a higher MC prevalence in Eastern (69.9%, 95%CI 49.9–86.8) compared to Southern African (33.3%, 95%CI 21.7–46.2). The overall prevalence was higher in urban (45.3%, 95%CI 27.7–63.4) compared to rural settings (42.6%, 95% 26.5–59.5). Male circumcision prevalence increased from 40.2% (95% CI 25.0–56.3) during 2010–2015 to 56.2% (95% CI 31.5–79.5) during 2016–2023. Three countries exceeded 80% MC coverage, namely, Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania.

Conclusion

Overall, the current MC prevalence is below 50%, with higher prevalence in Eastern African countries and substantially lower prevalence in Southern Africa. Most of the priority countries need to do more to scale up medical male circumcision programs.

Introduction

The HIV epidemic remains the biggest health challenge facing sub-Saharan Africa, with an estimated 38.4 million people living with HIV, 1.5 million new infections in 2021 and 650 000 deaths from HIV-related illnesses [1, 2]. Male circumcision, a low cost, minimally invasive and, in many settings, culturally acceptable procedure, has been shown to be effective in reducing the sexual transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) [3]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of both randomized controlled trials and observational studies have consistently shown that male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by between 40% and 60% [4–6]. Male circumcision has also been associated with a reduced risk of HIV and STIs in partners of circumcised men [5]. Consequently, since 2007, voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) has been recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) as part of a package of HIV prevention strategies, alongside other behavioural, structural and pharmacological HIV prevention strategies [6]. In sub-Saharan Africa, this has resulted in a gradual increase in the prevalence of VMMC, paralleled with a gradual decrease is HIV prevalence due to multifactorial interventions [7]. However, the progress towards reaching enough VMMC coverage in men aged 15–49 years has been uneven and data are not readily available about the current prevalence of male circumcision in these countries [7].

Although highly efficacious antiretroviral drugs are now widely accessible to people living with HIV, 470 000 people died from HIV-related illnesses in 2018 [8]. Being cognisant of the disproportionate burden of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, the WHO prioritized 15 countries in Eastern and Southern Africa for support in setting up and scaling up VMMC, in order to increase male circumcision coverage in their countries [9]. These countries, have a high prevalence of HIV and traditionally low male circumcision prevalence, and include ten countries in Southern Africa, which are South Africa, Zambia and Botswana and four in Eastern Africa, namely, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda [10]. Notably, modelling data had suggested that increasing VMMC coverage to 80% would result in a reduction of 3.4 million new cases of HIV [11]. Coupled with other interventions, VMMC could potentially help in ending the HIV epidemic in the sub-Saharan African region.

Globally the prevalence of male circumcision is estimated to be between 36.7%– 38.7%, with most of male circumcision being done for either religious or cultural reasons, for example Jewish and Muslim populations are likely to have a circumcision prevalence near 100% [12]. In sub-Saharan Africa, the countries with the highest male circumcision proportions are mainly Muslim majority countries [13]. However, around the year 2010, other countries began to offer VMMC as part of a suite of HIV prevention strategies, driven by multilateral support from organisations such as the WHO, the UNAIDS and the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) [14]. However, the UNAIDS Fast-Track target for VMMC that 90% of males aged 10–29 years will have received VMMC services by 2021 in priority settings in sub-Saharan Africa, is yet to be achieved in many of the priority countries [15]. Although male circumcision prevalence and uptake statistics are sometimes reported in some countries, these data are not reported in a uniform pattern and data on the current progress in male circumcision coverage in the 15 priority countries are not readily available. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the prevalence of male circumcision in the 15 priority countries in sub-Saharan Africa during the period from 2010 to 2023. Further, we investigated the change in male circumcision prevalence during the same period and assessed the progress towards reaching of 80–90% male circumcision coverage in each country.

Methods

Study design and protocol registration

This study design was a systematic review and meta-analysis design and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [16]. The study protocol was registered in International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO, ref—CRD42021271042).

Data sources

A comprehensive search for data sources was carried out in PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar without language filters. The initial search was carried out on 25th October 2021 and an updated search in April 2023 using each country separately. We also searched for data sources for each country on the Google Search Engine, and websites of the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), and the WHO.

Search strategy

A comprehensive search strategy using a filter for sub-Saharan Africa was used to identify eligible data sources. This search strategy was based on the following key concepts: male circumcision using MeSH terms and keywords (medical circumcision, traditional circumcision, circumcision among adolescent boys, rite of passage, infant male circumcision, thematic synthesis male circumcision, traditional vs medical circumcision) and African countries (Botswana, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe). We also searched for countries with more than one name or that changed their official name in the last ten years. For example, Swaziland changed to Eswatini, and therefore both names were used in searches.

Screening of studies for inclusion

The records of the identified data sources across the search databases were exported into Endnote for deduplication and then to Rayyan [https://rayyan.qcri.org/], a systematic review management software, for screening. Initial screening of the studies using the titles and the abstracts was done for preliminary inclusion by two authors (BE and ME) per data source. Where conflicts in the selection of studies appeared, a third author (TC) was consulted. Subsequently, two reviewers independently assessed each of the full text of studies eligible for full-text screening. A predefined eligibility criteria checklist was used for the full-text assessment.

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

All cross-sectional, population-based and cohort studies that investigated the prevalence of male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa were eligible for inclusion in this review. The eligible studies should have been published during the period 1 January 2010 and 7 April 2023. This period 2010–2023 was selected as most VMMC programs started either just before or during the year 2010 (in the case of South Africa) after the WHO recommendation in 2007 [14]. No language restriction was applied, and we did not attempt to distinguish between VMMC and traditional and cultural male circumcision as many data sources did not do separate analyses by type of male circumcision and others did not specify the type of circumcision.

Exclusion criteria

Duplicate data sources, studies that did not report male circumcision prevalence by country in the analysis, studies that were published before or after the period of interest and studies that included data for countries outside the 15 priority countries were excluded.

Key definitions

Male circumcision was defined as the complete removal of the foreskin from a penis. However, this was self-reported in many studies, so we accepted the data sources’ definitions of male circumcision. To estimate the prevalence of male circumcision at a country level, we required nationally representative data and therefore attempted to distinguish between nationally representative data and local data. For this purpose, nationally representative studies were defined as studies that sampled from the whole country using a probability sampling method.

Data extraction

From each study meeting the eligibility criteria, two independent reviewers (BE and ME) extracted data into a predefined extraction form in Microsoft Office Excel. The two investigators compared their findings and discussed to resolve any differences and consulted the third reviewer (TC) when they failed to reach consensus. Data extracted included authors, dates of data collection, country, study design, setting, age groups included, total sample size, number of participants with male circumcision, sampling method, and response rate. We extracted the male circumcision data within age-groups if the authors reported the age-specific data. One study, Tram, et al. 2014, reported findings of DHS surveys carried out in 12 countries during the period 2006–2011 (24). However, if the DHS survey was published after 2010, data from Tram 2014 were not used, rather the original DHS report was then used. This was done for the Uganda DHS 2011 survey, Ethiopia DHS 2011, Lesotho DHS 2009, Malawi DHS 2010, Kenya DHS 2009, Rwanda DHS 2010, Mozambique DHS 2011, Tanzania DHS 2011, and the Zimbabwe DHS 2007.

Quality appraisal

Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the studies using the risk of bias checklist for prevalence studies described by Hoy et al. [17]. The tool uses a ten-item rating scale to assess the internal (items 1–4), and external validity (items 5–11) and the tenth item is a summary of the overall risk of study bias. Each item was assigned a score of 0 [yes] or 1 [no], and scores were summed across items to generate an overall quality score that ranged from 0 to 9. The risk of bias in each study was rated as low (0–3), moderate (4–6), or high (7–9) risk dependent on the number of questions answered as “yes [low risk]”.

Data synthesis

We described the characteristics of the included studies using a table and narratively in the text. We recalculated estimates of the prevalence of circumcision among men (number of cases/ sample size) based on the information on crude numerators and denominators provided in the individual studies. For each country, the prevalence of male circumcision was estimated using the highest ranked representative study that was available, and in this case, most of these were DHS surveys. If more than one country-level representative study was available for a specific time period, a meta-analysis was carried out.

Where meta-analysis was possible, we pooled prevalence from individual studies using a bias adjusted inverse variance heterogeneity model [18]. We used the Freeman-Turkey double arcsine transformation to stabilize the variance before pooling the studies. We assessed heterogeneity of studies using Cochran’s Q test, with a cut-off of 0.1, and the I2 statistic. Cochran’s Q test a generates a probability that indicates the consistent variation across studies rather than within subjects within a study with the null hypothesis assuming that male circumcision is the same across studies and variations are simply caused by chance. We interpreted I2 values over 50% to indicate substantial heterogeneity and above 75% high heterogeneity. If there was substantial heterogeneity, subgroup analysis was carried out. Preplanned subgroup analyses were done by age-group, by rural/urban settings, time period (before and after 2015) and by subregion (Eastern and Southern regions). Maps of the prevalence of male circumcision in each country before and after the year 2015 were generated using TableauTM software (https://www.tableau.com/en-gb/academic/students). Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots, Doi plots [19] and Eiger’s p-value. We reported prevalence and their 95% confidence intervals [95%CI] and used forest plots to display the findings. We used the metan package in Stata version 17 [26] for all meta-analyses.

Ethics

Given that this was a study for a systematic review which utilised published data, ethical approval was not required.

Results

Search results

We identified 395 records from all searches and 285 records were assessed for inclusion using the title and abstract only, after the removal of duplicates (Fig 1). After exclusion of 210 irrelevant records, the full texts of 75 studies were screened, and 22 data sources were excluded. A total of 53 data sources were finally included.

Fig 1. PRISMA flow chart.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

The figure shows the search process. Abbreviations: MC–male circumcision.

Characteristics of included studies

The 53 included studies had a combined total of 264, 110 men and were from 14 countries (S1 Table). The sample size ranged from 170 in a study from Tanzania to 36,628 in a study done in South Africa [20, 21]. Most (n = 44) of the studies were cross-sectional studies, three studies were cohort studies, one prospective observational study, and one pair-matched community-randomized trial. All the countries had data from at least one of the DHS. There were no data sources from South Sudan. We identified 36 studies which had surveys done before 2015 while 17 were done after 2015. One study reported the male circumcision prevalence among 12 countries in the sub-Saharan Africa during different surveys in men aged above 15 years [22].

Risk of bias assessment of included studies

The majority (n = 42) of the studies had a total score which reflected a low risk of bias, and the remaining (n = 11) studies had a total score which reflected a moderate risk of bias. However, there were deficiencies in the definition of male circumcision with 40 studies not giving an acceptable case definition of male circumcision. Similarly, item 7 was deficient in 41 studies where circumcision was measured by self-report (S2 Table).

Prevalence of male circumcision during 2010–2023

The raw prevalence of male circumcision ranged from 4.6% in a study from South Africa in 2011 to 98.8% in a study from Tanzania in 2011 [20, 23]. The overall prevalence during the study period was 45.9% (95% CI 32.2–59.8) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 100%) (Fig 2). The Doi plot showed no asymmetry suggesting no evidence of publication bias (S1 Fig). There was significant jump in the overall male circumcision prevalence from 40.2% (95% CI 25.0–56.3) during 2010–2015 to 56.2% (95% CI 31.5–79.5) during 2016–2023 (Fig 2).The prevalence of male circumcision was higher in urban settings (50.9%, 95% CI 35.6–66.2, I2 = 99.8%) compared to studies in the mixed urban/rural (43.8%, 95% CI 34.4–53.3, I2 = 100%) and purely rural settings (26.2%, 95% CI 16.0–37.8, I2 = 99.8%), with significant evidence of subgroup interaction (p = 0.031) (S3 Table). Male circumcision prevalence was higher in the Eastern African countries (69.8%, 95% CI 49.8–86.8, I2 = 100%) than the prevalence in the Southern African sub-region (33.4%, 95% CI 21.7–46.2, I2 = 99.9%) (S4 Table). The prevalence of male circumcision was highest in the 30–39 years age group (50.0%, 95% CI 30.9–69.0, I2 = 99.9%) and the 40–49 years age group (49.0%, 95% CI 29.2–69.0, I2 = 99.8%) (S5 Table).

Fig 2. Forest plot showing the overall prevalence of male circumcision during 2010–2023.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

The forest plot includes data from nationally representative studies only.

Prevalence of male circumcision in the 14 countries

Eastern Africa

Figs 3 and 5 show changes in the prevalence of male circumcision in Eastern African countries during the study period.

Fig 3. Changes in the prevalence of male circumcision in Eastern African countries during the period 2010–2023.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

The graph shows the changes in the prevalence of male circumcision in Eastern African countries during the period 2010–2023.

Fig 5. Maps showing changes in the prevalence of male circumcision in Eastern African countries during 2010–2015 and 2016–2023.

Fig 5

Open in a new tab

Maps showing the prevalence of male circumcision during 2010–2015 and 2016–2023 among sub-Saharan Africa countries.

In Kenya, nationally representative studies showed a consistently high prevalence of male circumcision during the study period. Results of a DHS survey showed a male circumcision prevalence of 85.9% (95% CI 84.7–87.0) among men aged 15 years and above before 2010 [22]. Another study carried out in nine regions showed a high prevalence of male circumcision prevalence among Kenyan HIV-uninfected men aged 15–64, of 91.1% (95% CI 90.4–91.8) pre-2010 and 85.8% (95% CI 85.0–86.5) in 2012 [24]. The Kenya DHS in 2014 reported an male circumcision prevalence of 93% (95% CI 92.5–93.4) [25]. However, some studies reported a lower prevalence of male circumcision from certain regions. In Kisumu, among men aged 15–49, three consecutive surveys [26] showed a male circumcision prevalence of 31.9 (95% CI 28.4–35.5) in 2009, 48.8% (95% CI 46.2–51.4) in 2011 and 59.7% (95% CI 57.0–62.3) in 2013. The remaining two studies reported a male circumcision prevalence of 50.6% (95% CI 49.3–51.9) in 2014 to 71.2% (95% CI 69.7–72.7) in 2019 in Siaya, Kisumu, Homa Bay and Migori Counties among men younger than 35 years [27, 28].

In Tanzania, nationally representative studies showed an increase in the male circumcision prevalence from 73.5% (95% CI 72.5–74.4) during 2011–2012 to 80% (95% CI 78.6–81.3) during 2015–2016 [29–32]. The highest male circumcision prevalence reported in Tanzania was 98.8% (95% CI 95.8–99.7), although this was in Northen Tanzanian communities which are traditionally circumcising [20].

In Uganda, a DHS survey in 2010 showed a male circumcision prevalence of 27% (95% CI 25.2–28.9) [22], which was similar to estimates from the Uganda AIDS Indicator Survey of 26.7% (95% CI 25.8–27.6) in 2011 [33–35]. Surveys done in 2015 and 2016 showed a slight increase in the male circumcision prevalence to 31.3 (95% CI 26.0–36.0) and 45.2 (95% CI 43.9–46.5) respectively [36, 37]. Circumcision prevalence was low among non-Muslim men, for example, in Rakai, the prevalence of male circumcision was 28.8% (95% CI 27.7–29.0) during 2010–2011 [38].

In Ethiopia, three nationally representative studies were carried out, and they showed a male circumcision prevalence of 92% (95% CI 91.5–92.4) in 2011 [39, 40], 92% (95% CI 91.7–92.6) in 2011 and 91.2% (95% CI 90.7–91.7) in 2016 in men aged 15 years and above [22, 39, 40]. The lowest reported male circumcision prevalence was 61.2% (95% CI 57.9–64.4) from a local study in the Gambella region in 2016 [41].

In Rwanda, three consecutive demographic and health surveys showed an increase in the male circumcision coverage among males aged 15–59 years. The male circumcision prevalence in the DHS in 2010, 2014–2015 and 2019–2020 was 13.3% (95% CI 12.5–14.2), 27.8% (95% CI 26.7–28.9) and 52.5% (95% CI 51.3–53.7) respectively [42–44]. Local studies also showed gradual increase in male circumcision prevalence, for example, in Nyanza district, male circumcision prevalence increased from 17% (95% CI 14.9–19.4) in 2010 to 35.8% (95% CI 31.5–40.4) in 2019 [45, 46].

Southern Africa

Figs 4 and 5 show the changes in the prevalence of male circumcision in Southern African countries during the study period.

Fig 4. Changes in the prevalence of male circumcision in Southern African countries during the period 2010–2023.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

The graph shows the changes in the prevalence of male circumcision in Southern African countries during the period 2010–2023.

In South Africa, three nationally representative studies were carried out, and they showed a gradual rise in male circumcision prevalence from 42.8% (95% CI 41.6–44.0) in 2008 [47], 55.6% (95% CI 54.0–57.2) in 2016 [48] and 61.6% (95% CI 61.1–62.1) in 2017 [21]. The remaining 4 regional and local studies showed a male circumcision prevalence which ranged from 4.6% in rural KwaZulu-Natal [49] during 2011 to a high of 56.7% in Orange Farm in 2017 [50] (S4 Table).

In Zimbabwe, four nationally representative studies were carried out, and they showed a male circumcision prevalence of 9% (95% CI 8.4–9.7) and 9.2% (95% CI 8.6–9.9) in 2010–2011 [22, 51], 11.3 (95% CI 9.6–13.3) [52] in 2013 and14.3% (95% CI 13.6–15.1) [53] in 2015. In two local Zimbabwean provinces, the male circumcision prevalence was 20.3% (95% CI 17.9–22.9) in 2009 [54]. In the Mazowe District, the male circumcision prevalence was 15.3% (95% CI 11.7–19.8) among men aged 18–49 in 2014 [55]. Nationally representative data were not available from the period 2015–2023 (Fig 3).

In Malawi, three nationally representative studies were carried out, and they showed a gradual increase in the male circumcision prevalence of 19.1% (95% CI 17.9–20.3) and 22% (95% CI 21.1–23.0) [22, 56] in 2010 and 28% (95% CI 27.1–29.0) [57] during 2015–2016.

In Zambia, nationally representative studies suggested a gradual increase in the male circumcision prevalence from before 2010 (2007: 12.8%, 95% CI 12.0–13.6), to 11.4% (95% CI 10.2–12.8) during 2023 [22, 58], 21.6 (95% CI 20.9–22.3) during 2013–2014 to 30.9% (95% CI 30.1–31.7) during 2018 [59, 60].

In Botswana, one study reported two national-wide consecutive surveys done in 2008 and 2013 that showed an increase in the male circumcision prevalence from 12.5% (95% CI 11.7–13.3) to 25.2% (95% CI 23.9–26.7) respectively [61]. Another nationally representative study reported male circumcision prevalence of 50.1% (95% CI 49.3–51.0) during the period 2013–2016 [62]. The latest survey done in 2020 among undergraduate male students aged 17–25 showed similar findings (47.9%, 95% CI 42.3–53.5) [63].

In Eswatini, one nationally representative study reported a male circumcision coverage of 8.2% (95% CI 7.4–9.1) in 2006–2007 (24), while a survey done in Shiselweni region reported a male circumcision prevalence of 49.4% (95% CI 44.6–54.2) in 2018 (Shezi et al 2023) [22, 64].

In Mozambique, one nationally representative study reported a male circumcision prevalence of 48% (95% CI 46.5–49.5) in men above 15 years in 2011 [22]. In Chókwè District, the male circumcision prevalence increased from 50% (95% CI 47.1–53) in 2014–2015 to 73.5 (95% CI 70.9–75.9) [65].

In Lesotho, the male circumcision prevalence increased from 5.3% (95% CI 4.6–6.1) in 2009 to 72% (95% CI 70.3–73.6) in 2014 according to data from the Lesotho DHS [22, 66].

In Namibia, the male circumcision prevalence increased slightly from 21% (95% CI 19.7–22.3) in 2006–2007 to 25.5% (95% CI 24.2–26.9) in 2013 according to data from two DHS surveys [22, 67].

The pooled prevalence of male circumcision in each country is shown in S6 Table. Fig 5 shows the overall prevalence of male circumcision in each country during 2010–2015 and 2016–2023.

Discussion

In this systemic review and meta-analysis of 53 studies from 14 of the 15 HIV priority countries, we found that overall prevalence of male circumcision during 2010–23 was 46%. The prevalence of male circumcision increased from 40% during 2010–2015 to 56% during 2016–2023 in the priority countries. Further, the prevalence of male circumcision was higher in Eastern African countries compared to Southern African countries.

We found that during the study period, overall, just under half, 46%, of men of reproductive age in the priority African countries were circumcised, with variation between countries and between regions. Previous estimates from a published study have suggested a global male circumcision prevalence of 36.7% in 2015 [12]. Notably, current estimates of the male circumcision prevalence in the region have not been reported in reviews. In addition, our findings confirm the disparity in male circumcision prevalence in rural and urban regions, findings which are in concurrence with the primary studies that we included [25, 31, 40, 66]. Our findings suggest a need to up-scale the male circumcision uptake in the priority countries.

Our analyses showed that the prevalence of male circumcision increased by 16 percentage points from 40% during 2010–2015 to 56% during 2016–2023. This suggests that the promotion of VMMC has an impact, and that this impact could be better. However, there are also some notable exceptions to this trend. For example, some countries with high HIV prevalence, such as Lesotho and Eswatini, have reported very low rates of circumcision, 5.3% (95% CI 4.6–6.1), and 8.2% (95% CI 7.4–9.1) respectively [22]. This highlights the importance of understanding the cultural and social factors that influence circumcision practices in different populations.

Our findings suggest that only three countries, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanzania, have reached the WHO target of 80% in at least one of the surveys done in these countries. The current study also showed that the prevalence of male circumcision was still low in Southern Africa countries which have the highest burden of HIV. The highest reported prevalence in South Africa was 56.7%, in Botswana, 47.9%, in Eswatini, 26% [68], in Namibia, 21%, and 5.3% in Lesotho. A potential explanation for the differences in VMMC prevalence between Eastern and Southern African countries is related to cultural and religious practices towards circumcision. In Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda, significant proportion of the population are of Islamic religion where circumcision is commonly performed at birth [69]. On the other hand, circumcision practices in Southern Africa vary according to religion and local cultures the proportion of Muslim populations is relatively small [5]. Some local cultures practice circumcision as a rite of passage [70]. Although circumcision has a long history in many African cultures and is often seen as a rite of passage or a symbol of masculinity, attitudes towards circumcision vary widely within and between countries, and may be influenced by factors such as religion, ethnicity, and education [70]. Understanding these cultural and social factors is important in designing effective VMMC programs that are culturally sensitive and acceptable to target populations.

Out of the 14 countries, Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania had surpassed the WHO target of 80% during at least one survey. While the male circumcision target has not been met in the remaining countries, considerable progress was made with most of the priority countries more than doubling their male circumcision coverage. The reasons for the high male circumcision prevalence in the Eastern African countries have been discussed before. However, our findings suggest that interventions to increase male circumcision acceptability and coverage may have contributed to the observed increase in the male circumcision prevalence in all these countries. These interventions included awareness campaigns, and mobile circumcision clinics [12, 71, 72]. However, our results also suggest a need for continued investment to promote male circumcision uptake to reach, and possibly surpass, the WHO target. The benefits of this intervention cannot be understated, modelling data suggested that a quarter of a million new infections were prevented through VMMC in sub-Saharan Africa during the decade 2008–2018 [73]. Notably, male circumcision offers lifelong protection, and therefore has larger future benefits [73]. For example, if other behavioural and structural interventions remain constant, the mathematical models forecast that the impact of the VMMC up to 2018 alone would result in the prevention of 1.5 million cases of HIV by 2030 and that this number could triple to 4.5 million averted HIV cases by 2050 [73].

A strength of this study was that exhaustive search for data sources was carried out in both scientific databases and databases of government and inter-governmental organisations. The analysis used high quality data that were nationally representative, and therefore reflects the prevalence of male circumcision in these countries. Limitations of the current study include the lack of enough studies per country, the lack of data from South Sudan and the lack of recent data in most countries. Lastly, male circumcision data were not reported according to the type of circumcision, i.e. medical or customary circumcision.

Conclusion

Overall, the current prevalence of male circumcision is just below 50%, with higher prevalence observed in Eastern African countries and substantially lower prevalence in Southern Africa. While some progress in the male circumcision coverage was observed during the study period, most of the priority countries still need to scale up male circumcision programs, especially in rural regions. Further, countries should consider prioritizing scaling up of male circumcision in older males (>50 years) as the prevalence of male circumcision in this demographic lags behind that in other age groups.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist: The PRISMA checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

(DOCX)

pone.0298387.s001.docx (31.5KB, docx)
S1 Table. Characteristics of included studies.

This table shows the characteristics of included studies.

(DOCX)

pone.0298387.s002.docx (52KB, docx)
S2 Table. Assessment of risk of bias of included studies using Hoy et al 2012.

This table shows the assessment of risk of bias of the included studies using 11 item Hoy et al tool.

(DOCX)

pone.0298387.s003.docx (58.1KB, docx)
S3 Table. Male circumcision prevalence in urban vs rural settings.

This table shows the prevalence of male circumcision in sub-Saharan African countries based on the rural and urban settings.

(DOCX)

pone.0298387.s004.docx (24.3KB, docx)
S4 Table. Male circumcision prevalence in eastern and southern regions.

This table shows the prevalence of male circumcision in Sub-Saharan African countries based on the region.

(DOCX)

pone.0298387.s005.docx (19.1KB, docx)
S5 Table. Male circumcision prevalence in different age groups.

This table shows the prevalence of male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa among different age groups.

(DOCX)

pone.0298387.s006.docx (40.6KB, docx)
S6 Table. Male circumcision prevalence by country.

This table shows the prevalence of male circumcision in Sub-Saharan African countries for each country.

(DOCX)

pone.0298387.s007.docx (22.3KB, docx)
S7 Table. Male circumcision prevalence by time period.

This table shows the prevalence of male circumcision in Sub-Saharan African countries by the time period: before 2015 and after 2015.

(DOCX)

pone.0298387.s008.docx (19.1KB, docx)
S1 Fig. Doi plot to assess publication bias.

This figure shows the Doi plot used to assess the publication bias. The Doi plot showed no asymmetry suggesting no evidence of publication bias.

(PNG)

pone.0298387.s009.png (85.5KB, png)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.UNAIDS. Global HIV & AIDS statistics—Fact sheet. 2021. [cited 2023 4/23]; Available from: https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/fact-sheet. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Organization, W.H., Global HIV Programme. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bailey R.C., et al., Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2007. 369(9562): p. 643–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mills E., et al., Male circumcision for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection: a meta-analysis of randomized trials involving 11,050 men. HIV Med, 2008. 9(6): p. 332–5. doi: .1111/j.1468-1293.2008.00596.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Weiss H.A., Quigley M.A., and Hayes R.J., Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aids, 2000. 14(15): p. 2361–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.World Health, O., Preventing HIV through safe voluntary medical male circumcision for adolescent boys and men in generalized HIV epidemics: recommendations and key considerations: web annex 2.1. GRADE and evidence-to-decision tables on voluntary medical male circumcision for HIV prevention among adolescents and men. 2020, Geneva: World Health Organization. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.UNAIDS and W.H. Organization. Uneven progress on the voluntarymedical male circumcision. 2022; Available from: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/hq-hiv-hepatitis-and-stis-library/who-unaids-male-circumcision-progress-brief-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=2852eedf_1&ua=1. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.World Health Organization, HIV/AIDS. 2018. [cited 2023 19 June]; Available from: https://www.afro.who.int/health-topics/hivaids#:~:text=The%20continuing%20decline%20in%20AIDS,a%2040%25%20decrease%20since%202010. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.UNAIDS, Joint strategic action framework to accelerate the scale-up of voluntary medical male circumcision for HIV prevention in eastern and southern Africa 2012–2016. 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.UNAIDS. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. 2015. [cited 2023 4–27]; Available from: https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/JC2774_2015ProgressReport_GlobalPlan_en.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sgaier S.K., et al., Achieving the HIV prevention impact of voluntary medical male circumcision: lessons and challenges for managing programs. PLoS Med, 2014. 11(5): p. e1001641. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Morris B.J., et al., Estimation of country-specific and global prevalence of male circumcision. Population Health Metrics, 2016. 14: p. 4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Feldacker C., et al., Implementing voluntary medical male circumcision using an innovative, integrated, health systems approach: experiences from 21 districts in Zimbabwe. Glob Health Action, 2018. 11(1): p. 1414997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.UNAIDS. Joint Strategic Action Framework to Accelerate the Scale-Up of Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Eastern and Southern Africa. 2011. [cited 2023 4–27]; Available from: https://unaids-test.unaids.org/sites/default/files/unaids/contentassets/documents/unaidspublication/2011/JC2251_Action_Framework_circumcision_en.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.World Health, O., A framework for voluntary medical male circumcision: effective HIV prevention and a gateway to improved adolescent boys’ & men’s health in Eastern and Southern Africa by 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Stone JC, Glass K, Clark J, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Munn Z, Tugwell P, Doi SAR. The MethodologicAl STandards for Epidemiological Research (MASTER) scale demonstrated a unified framework for bias assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021. Jun;134:52–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.012 Epub 2021 Jan 21. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hoy D., et al., Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J Clin Epidemiol, 2012. 65(9): p. 934–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Doi S.A. and Thalib L., A quality-effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology, 2008. 19(1): p. 94–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Furuya-Kanamori L., Barendregt J.J., and Doi S.A.R., A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analysis. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2018. 16(4): p. 195–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wambura M., et al., Acceptability of medical male circumcision in the traditionally circumcising communities in Northern Tanzania. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zuma K., et al., The HIV Epidemic in South Africa: Key Findings from 2017 National Population-Based Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022. 19(13). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tram K.H. and Bertrand J.T., Correlates of male circumcision in Eastern and Southern African countries: Establishing a baseline prior to VMMC scale-up. PLoS ONE, 2014. 9(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Baisley K., et al., High HIV incidence and low uptake of HIV prevention services: The context of risk for young male adults prior to DREAMS in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. PLoS One, 2018. 13(12): p. e0208689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Galbraith J.S., et al., Status of voluntary medical male circumcision in Kenya: findings from 2 nationally representative surveys in Kenya, 2007 and 2012. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 2014. 66 Suppl 1(Suppl 1): p. S37–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kenya National Bureau of, S., et al., Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Westercamp M., et al., Changes in male circumcision prevalence and risk compensation in the Kisumu, Kenya population, 2008–2013. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 2017. 74(2): p. e30–e37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Odoyo-June E., et al., Predictors of voluntary medical male circumcision prevalence among men aged 25–39 years in Nyanza region, Kenya: results from the baseline survey of the TASCO study. Plos one, 2017. 12(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Odoyo-June E., et al., Prevalence of male circumcision in four culturally non-circumcising counties in western Kenya after 10 years of program implementation from 2008 to 2019. PLoS One, 2021. 16(7): p. e0254140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kim H., et al., Geospatial assessment of the voluntary medical male circumcision programme in Tanzania, 2011–2016. BMJ Case Reports, 2019. 4(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.National Bureau of Statistics, N.B.S.T. and I.C.F. Macro, Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ministry of Health, C.D.G.E.a.C.M.T.M., et al., Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey and Malaria Indicator Survey 2015–2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tanzania Commission for, A.T., et al., Tanzania HIV/AIDS and Malaria Indicator Survey 2011–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kibira S.P., et al., Differences in risky sexual behaviors and HIV prevalence of circumcised and uncircumcised men in Uganda: Evidence from a 2011 cross-sectional national survey. Reproductive Health, 2014. 11(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ministry of, H.U. and I.C.F. International, Uganda AIDS Indicator Survey (UAIS) 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Uganda Bureau of Statistics, U. and I.C.F. International, Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Uganda Bureau of Statistics, U. and Icf, Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nanteza B.M., et al., Knowledge on voluntary medical male circumcision in a low uptake setting in northern Uganda. BMC Public Health, 2018. 18(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kong X., et al., Male circumcision coverage, knowledge, and attitudes after 4-years of program scale-up in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS and Behavior, 2014. 18(5): p. 880–884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Central Statistical A.E. and International I.C.F., Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Central Statistical Agency, C.S.A.E. and Icf, Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Edossa Z.K., Kumsa A.T., and Gebre M.N., Male circumcision uptake and its predictors among sexually active men aged 15–59 years living in the highest HIV prevalence region of Ethiopia: evidence from 2016 Ethiopia demographic and health survey. BMC Public Health, 2020. 20(1): p. 1772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.National Institute of Statistics of, R., et al., Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey 2014–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, N., M.O.H.R. Ministry of Health, and I.C.F. International, Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, N., M.O.H. Ministry of Health, and Icf, Rwanda demographic and health survey 2019–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Gasasira R.A., et al., Determinants of circumcision and willingness to be circumcised by Rwandan men, 2010. BMC Public Health, 2012. 12: p. 134. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Nzamwita P. and Biracyaza E., Factors Associated with Low Uptake of Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision as HIV-Prevention Strategy among Men Aged 18–49 Years from Nyanza District, Rwanda. HIV AIDS (Auckl), 2021. 13: p. 377–388. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Peltzer K., et al., Prevalence and acceptability of male circumcision in South Africa. Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med, 2014. 11(4): p. 126–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.National Department of, H. and Icf, South Africa Demographic and Health Survey 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Baisley K., et al., High HIV incidence and low uptake of HIV prevention services: The context of risk for young male adults prior to DREAMS in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. PLoS ONE, 2018. 13(12). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Marshall E., et al., Obtaining a male circumcision prevalence rate of 80% among adults in a short time an observational prospective intervention study in the Orange Farm township of South Africa. Medicine (United States), 2017. 96(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, Z. and I.C.F. International, Zimbabwe Demographic and Health Survey 2010–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hatzold K., et al., Barriers and motivators to voluntary medical male circumcision uptake among different age groups of men in Zimbabwe: results from a mixed methods study. PLoS One, 2014. 9(5): p. e85051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Zimbabwe National Statistics, A. and I.C.F. International, Zimbabwe Demographic and Health Survey 2015: Final Report. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Mavhu W., et al., Prevalence and factors associated with knowledge of and willingness for male circumcision in rural Zimbabwe. Trop Med Int Health, 2011. 16(5): p. 589–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Rupfutse M., et al., Factors associated with uptake of voluntary medical male circumcision, Mazowe District, Zimbabwe, 2014. Pan African Medical Journal, 2014. 19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mutombo N., Maina B., and Jamali M., Male circumcision and HIV infection among sexually active men in Malawi. BMC Public Health, 2015. 15: p. 1051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.National Statistical, O.M. and Icf, Malawi Demographic and Health Survey 2015–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Hensen B., et al., Application of an HIV Prevention Cascade to Identify Gaps in Increasing Coverage of Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision Services in 42 Rural Zambian Communities. AIDS and Behavior, 2019. 23(5): p. 1095–1103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Central Statistical, O.Z., et al., Zambia Demographic and Health Survey 2013–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zambia Statistics Agency, Z.S.A., et al., Zambia Demographic and Health Survey 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Keetile M., An assessment of sexual risk behaviours among circumcised and uncircumcised men before and after the implementation of the safe male circumcision programme in Botswana. AIDS Care—Psychological and Socio-Medical Aspects of AIDS/HIV, 2020. 32(12): p. 1594–1601. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Marukutira T., et al., Male circumcision uptake during the Botswana Combination Prevention Project. PLoS One, 2022. 17(6): p. e0269178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Tapera R., et al., Factors associated with uptake of voluntary medical male circumcision among University of Botswana undergraduate male students. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 2017. 55(5–6): p. 333–342. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Shezi M.H., Tlou B., and Naidoo S., Knowledge, attitudes and acceptance of voluntary medical male circumcision among males attending high school in Shiselweni region, Eswatini: a cross sectional study. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Hines J.Z., et al., Prevalence of Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision for HIV Infection Prevention—Chókwè District, Mozambique, 2014–2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 2021. 70(26): p. 942–946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Ministry of, H.L. and I.C.F. International, Lesotho Demographic and Health Survey 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Ministry of Health and Social Services—Mo, H.S.S.N. and I.C.F. International, Namibia Demographic and Health Survey 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Belle J.A. and Gamedze N.N., Behavioral factors contributing to the transmission of HIV and AIDS amongst young women of Mbabane in Swaziland. Afr Health Sci, 2019. 19(3): p. 2302–2311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Dabbagh H., Is Circumcision "Necessary" in Islam? A Philosophical Argument Based on Peer Disagreement. J Relig Health, 2022. 61(6): p. 4871–4886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Warees W.M., Anand S., and Rodriguez A.M., Circumcision, in StatPearls. 2023, StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2023, StatPearls Publishing LLC.: Treasure Island (FL) ineligible companies. Disclosure: Sachit Anand declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies. Disclosure: Alexander Rodriguez declares no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Dickson K.E., et al., Voluntary medical male circumcision: a framework analysis of policy and program implementation in eastern and southern Africa. PLoS Med, 2011. 8(11): p. e1001133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Kim H.H., Li P.S., and Goldstein M., Male circumcision: Africa and beyond? Curr Opin Urol, 2010. 20(6): p. 515–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.World Health Organization, Progress Brief- Male circumcision for HIV prevention, 2018, Available at: https://www.afro.who.int/sites/default/files/2018-10/29%20Oct_18145_Progress%20Brief_VMMC%202018.pdf [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Taurayi A Tafuma

21 Dec 2023

PONE-D-23-37643

Estimates of the prevalence of male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa from 2010 – 2023 – a systematic review and meta-analysis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chivese,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 04 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Taurayi A Tafuma, MPH, MBChB

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

3. We note that  Figure 5 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of  Figure 5 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

 **********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

 **********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

 **********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

 **********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The title is well structured and aligned to the objectives, findings and conclusions

In most cases, the use of Sub-Saharan Africa in between a sentence need to be observed as it should be sub-Saharan Africa

On introduction, authors should give also HIV prevalence change in countries as they give the background of VMMC prevalence so that readers are directed on VMMC contribution to HIV prevalence. On this part on prevalence for 2021 was given yet the study is for 2010 to 3023.

On study design, first statement, write in past tense as it is in present tense

On page 6 and afterwards, seems font type and size changed, so check on this.

On analysis page 13, state the assumptions of Cochran's Q test so that its linked to the study an the test is usually used to test consistent of outcomes within different groups

On sample size, 53 records were finally used out of the initial 285 meaning about 3-4 records per country, are these suffice to represent the country and make conclusions about VMMC for a country.

In discussion, relate VMMC prevalence to HIV prevalence among men so that this will strengthen recommendations on scaling up VMMC which is below 50% in some countries.

In conclusion, relate recommendations to specific age groups as outlined in the results so that it will be more targeted on the age groups trailing behind.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is technically sound, is presented in a clear and intelligible manner, and the data generally support the conclusions. However, I have queries about the following points/issues:

1. There is no clear rationale or justification provided for the time period selected (2010 to 2023) for inclusion of studies for review. How was the time period for studies to include determined? Was it an arbitrary decision that had no obvious justification or reasoning behind it? How does the time period selected for inclusion of studies assist or contribute towards achieving the objectives of this work? Could the rationale or justification for the time period selected (2010 to 2023) for inclusion of studies please be clearly stated in the manuscript/paper?

2. Search results initially yielded 395 records or studies, and then after assessment, some studies were excluded and a total of 53 data sources were finally included. Although there is a section of the paper titled "Characteristics of included studies"; this section only describes some features of studies that were included, it does not expressly and explicitly state why they were included; ie. inclusion criteria for inclusion of studies is not clearly stated. There is no section of the document that describes or categorically states the exclusion criteria that were used to make decisions to exclude those studies that were excluded; i.e. exclusion criteria for exclusion of studies is also not clearly stated. Would it not be better if there could be a section of the document that clearly and explicitly states and provides the inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting studies/data sources for this work?

My recommendation is that the paper would be acceptable for publication after minor revisions to address and attend to the queries that I have raised above.

 **********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Fungai Hamilton Mudzengerere

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Tonderai Kasu

 **********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 13;19(3):e0298387. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0298387.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

7 Jan 2024

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

Response: Thank you. The manuscript has been edited to meet the journal’s style requirements.

2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Response: Thank you. The ethics statement only appears in the Methods section under “Ethics” and has been deleted from elsewhere.

3. We note that Figure 5 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 5 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Response: Thank you – please note that this figure is not a copyrighted map but a map that we generated from the data synthesized in this meta-analysis. We have added the following statement in the methods, last paragraph on page 7

Maps of the prevalence of male circumcision in each country before and after the year 2015 were generated using TableauTM software (https://www.tableau.com/en-gb/academic/students).

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

Response: Thank you. Captions for the supporting information are added at the end of the manuscript.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Response: Thank you. No retracted references are present in our reference list.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1:

The title is well structured and aligned to the objectives, findings and conclusions

In most cases, the use of Sub-Saharan Africa in between a sentence need to be observed as it should be sub-Saharan Africa

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected this.

On introduction, authors should give also HIV prevalence change in countries as they give the background of VMMC prevalence so that readers are directed on VMMC contribution to HIV prevalence

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added a sentence on the gradual decrease of HIV prevalence which is in parallel with a gradual increase in the coverage of VMMC in SSA, although it should be noted that the gradual decrease in HIV prevalence cannot be attributed to VMMC alone but to its combination with several multifactorial interventions.

“In sub-Saharan Africa, this has resulted in a gradual increase in the prevalence of VMMC, paralleled with a gradual decrease is HIV prevalence due to multifactorial interventions [8].”

On study design, first statement, write in past tense as it is in present tense

Response: Thank you for your comment. The sentence has been changed to the following: This study design was a systematic review and meta-analysis design that followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [16].

On page 6 and afterwards, seems font type and size changed, so check on this.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Consistent font type and size have now been used across the manuscript.

On analysis page 13, state the assumptions of Cochran's Q test so that its linked to the study an the test is usually used to test consistent of outcomes within different groups

Response: Thank you for your comment. The following has been added to the statistical analysis paragraph:

“Cochran’s Q test a generates a probability that indicates the consistent variation across studies rather than within subjects within a study with the null hypothesis assuming that male circumcision is the same across studies and variations are simply caused by chance.”

On sample size, 53 records were finally used out of the initial 285 meaning about 3-4 records per country, are these suffice to represent the country and make conclusions about VMMC for a country.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Some of these studies are nationally representative studies with rigorous design, and may suffice, with some limitations, in describing the prevalence of male circumcision in each country. We do agree that more studies would have provided better estimates and have also discussed this in the limitations. The local and regional studies would also not have been very useful in providing estimates. This is why we prioritized the nationally representative studies in the analyses.

We have edited the discussion as follows:

Limitations of the current study include the lack of enough studies per country, the lack of data from South Sudan and the lack of recent data in most countries.

In discussion, relate VMMC prevalence to HIV prevalence among men so that this will strengthen recommendations on scaling up VMMC which is below 50% in some countries.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added the following:

“The benefits of this intervention cannot be understated, modelling data suggested that a quarter of a million new infections were prevented through VMMC in sub-Saharan Africa during the decade 2008-2018 [74]. Notably, male circumcision offers lifelong protection, and therefore has larger future benefits [74]. For example, if other behavioral and structural interventions remain constant, the mathematical models forecast that the impact of the VMMC up to 2018 alone would result in the prevention of 1.5million cases of HIV by 2030 and that this number could triple to 4.5million averted HIV cases by 2050 [74].”

In conclusion, relate recommendations to specific age groups as outlined in the results so that it will be more targeted on the age groups trailing behind.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added the following:

“Further, countries should consider prioritizing scaling up of male circumcision in older males (>50 years) as the prevalence of male circumcision in this demographic lags behind that in other age groups.”

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is technically sound, is presented in a clear and intelligible manner, and the data generally support the conclusions. However, I have queries about the following points/issues:

1. There is no clear rationale or justification provided for the time period selected (2010 to 2023) for inclusion of studies for review. How was the time period for studies to include determined? Was it an arbitrary decision that had no obvious justification or reasoning behind it? How does the time period selected for inclusion of studies assist or contribute towards achieving the objectives of this work? Could the rationale or justification for the time period selected (2010 to 2023) for inclusion of studies please be clearly stated in the manuscript/paper?

Response: Thank you for your comment. Most VMMC programs started around the year 2010 after the WHO recommendation. We have added the following sentence:

“This period 2010-2023 was selected as most VMMC programs started either just before or during the year 2010 (in the case of South Africa) after the WHO recommendation in 2007 [14].”

2. Search results initially yielded 395 records or studies, and then after assessment, some studies were excluded and a total of 53 data sources were finally included. Although there is a section of the paper titled "Characteristics of included studies"; this section only describes some features of studies that were included, it does not expressly and explicitly state why they were included; ie. inclusion criteria for inclusion of studies is not clearly stated. There is no section of the document that describes or categorically states the exclusion criteria that were used to make decisions to exclude those studies that were excluded; i.e. exclusion criteria for exclusion of studies is also not clearly stated. Would it not be better if there could be a section of the document that clearly and explicitly states and provides the inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting studies/data sources for this work?

Response: Thank you for your comment. A clear and explicit description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria has been added in the “Method” section under “Eligibility” as follow:

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

All cross-sectional, population-based and cohort studies that investigated the prevalence of male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa were eligible for inclusion in this review. The eligible studies should have been published during the period 1 January 2010 and 7 April 2023. This period 2010-2023 was selected as most VMMC programs started either just before or during the year 2010 (in the case of South Africa) after the WHO recommendation in 2007 [14]. No language restriction was applied, and we did not attempt to distinguish between VMMC and traditional and cultural male circumcision as many data sources did not do separate analyses by type of male circumcision and others did not specify the type of circumcision.

Exclusion criteria

Duplicate data sources, studies that did not report male circumcision prevalence by country in the analysis, studies that were published before or after the period of interest and studies that included data for countries outside the 15 priority countries were excluded.

Attachment

Submitted filename: MC Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0298387.s010.docx (23.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Taurayi A Tafuma

24 Jan 2024

Estimates of the prevalence of male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa from 2010 – 2023 – a systematic review and meta-analysis

PONE-D-23-37643R1

Dear Tawanda Chivese,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Taurayi A Tafuma, MPH, MBChB

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Taurayi A Tafuma

4 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-37643R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Chivese,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Taurayi A Tafuma

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist: The PRISMA checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298387.s001.docx (31.5KB, docx)
    S1 Table. Characteristics of included studies.

    This table shows the characteristics of included studies.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298387.s002.docx (52KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Assessment of risk of bias of included studies using Hoy et al 2012.

    This table shows the assessment of risk of bias of the included studies using 11 item Hoy et al tool.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298387.s003.docx (58.1KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Male circumcision prevalence in urban vs rural settings.

    This table shows the prevalence of male circumcision in sub-Saharan African countries based on the rural and urban settings.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298387.s004.docx (24.3KB, docx)
    S4 Table. Male circumcision prevalence in eastern and southern regions.

    This table shows the prevalence of male circumcision in Sub-Saharan African countries based on the region.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298387.s005.docx (19.1KB, docx)
    S5 Table. Male circumcision prevalence in different age groups.

    This table shows the prevalence of male circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa among different age groups.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298387.s006.docx (40.6KB, docx)
    S6 Table. Male circumcision prevalence by country.

    This table shows the prevalence of male circumcision in Sub-Saharan African countries for each country.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298387.s007.docx (22.3KB, docx)
    S7 Table. Male circumcision prevalence by time period.

    This table shows the prevalence of male circumcision in Sub-Saharan African countries by the time period: before 2015 and after 2015.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0298387.s008.docx (19.1KB, docx)
    S1 Fig. Doi plot to assess publication bias.

    This figure shows the Doi plot used to assess the publication bias. The Doi plot showed no asymmetry suggesting no evidence of publication bias.

    (PNG)

    pone.0298387.s009.png (85.5KB, png)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: MC Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0298387.s010.docx (23.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES