. 2018 Jul 27;13(7):e0200737. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200737

Table 1. Key characteristics of included studies.

Author, Year, Country, Rural/ Urban	Testing approach Intervention(s) to enhance Linkage To Care (LTC)	Proportion HIV+ (%)^*	Number HIV+		Numerator for % LTC	Denominator for % LTC	Proportion LTC % (n/N)	Numerator for % initiated ART	Denominator for % initiated ART	Proportion initiated ART % (n/N)
Author, Year, Country, Rural/ Urban		Proportion HIV+ (%)^*	Newly identified HIV+	Known HIV+, not in care/ on ART	Numerator for % LTC	Denominator for % LTC	Proportion LTC % (n/N)	Numerator for % initiated ART	Denominator for % initiated ART	Proportion initiated ART % (n/N)
Home-based HTS (HB-HTS)
Barnabas, 2014¹ [29] South Africa & Uganda, Rural & peri-urban	Door-to-door HB-HTS study; POC CD4-count, Written referral, Lay counsellor FU	19	229	152	n visiting an HIV clinic	N newly diagnosed or known HIV+ not on ART	96% (367/381)	n initiated ART	N newly diagnosed or known HIV+ not on ART & CD4 <350/cc³	76% (94/123)
Dalal, 2013 [14] Kenya, Rural + urban	Door-to-door HB-HTS implementation; Written referral, Lay counsellor FU	16	1839	Not reported	n accessing patient support centre	N newly diagnosed	47% (454/958)	n initiated ART	N newly diagnosed adults & CD4 <250/cc³	34% 43/125
Genberg, 2015 [15] Kenya, Rural	Door-to-door HB-HTS implementation; Verbal referral	11	1360	344	n having clinical encounter with HIV care provider	N newly diagnosed or known HIV+ not in care	14% (243/1704)	n initiated ART	N newly diagnosed, eligible and LTC ²	85% (78/92)
Genberg, 2015 [15] Kenya, Rural	Door-to-door HB-HTS implementation; Verbal referral	11	1360	344	n having clinical encounter with HIV care provider	N newly diagnosed or known HIV+ not in care	14% (243/1704)	n initiated ART	N known HIV+ not on ART ²	53% (18/34)
Iwuji, 2016 [31] South Africa, Rural	Door-to-door HB-HTS within cluster randomised trial; Referral; FU if failure to link (home visit or telephone), ART for all PLWH in intervention arm	31	264 (interv.) + 310 (control arm)	349 (interv.) + 416 (control arm)	n visiting clinic (according to clinic database)	N newly diagnosed or known HIV+ not in care	63% (191/305) (interv.)	n initiated ART	All PLWH irrespective of CD4 count)	89% (194/218) (interv.)
Iwuji, 2016 [31] South Africa, Rural		31	264 (interv.) + 310 (control arm)	349 (interv.) + 416 (control arm)	n visiting clinic (according to clinic database)	N newly diagnosed or known HIV+ not in care	64% (185/291) (control arm)	n initiated ART	All PLWH irrespective of CD4 count)	42% (83/196) (control arm)
Labhardt, 2014 [11] Lesotho, Rural	Door-to-door HB-HTS and multi-disease services (within a cluster randomised trial); Referral only	4	39	Not reported	n linked to care	N newly diagnosed	26% (10/39)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
MacKellar, 2016 [17] Swaziland, Rural + urban	Door-to-door HB-HTS national campaign; Written referral, Text/call reminder, Call 3d after missed visit / FU visit	Not reported	850	Not reported	n received CD4 count result or WHO staged	N newly diagnosed	27% (209/788)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
Maman, 2016 [32] Malawi, Rural	Door-to-door HTS within population cross-sectional survey; POC CD4-count, Written referral	17	282	Not reported	n visiting clinic (according to clinic database)	N newly diagnosed	47% (115/244)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
Medley, 2013 [19] Kenya, Rural	Door-to-door HTS within demographic surveillance; Written referral, Peer educator FU	11	923	Not reported	n currently attending to HIV clinical care	N adults tested HIV+	42% (312/737)	n on ART	N adults tested HIV+ and LTC ²	26% (80/312)
Naik, 2015 [27] South Africa, Rural	Door-to-door HB-HTS study; Written referral (for CD4-count at clinic)	10	274	Not reported	n linked to care	N clients tested HIV+ not already in pre-ART or ART care	76% (273/359)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
Tumwebaze, 2012¹ [20] Uganda, Rural & peri-urban	Door-to-door HB-HTS study; POC CD4-count, Written referral	10	77	36	n visiting an HIV clinic	N newly diagnosed or known HIV+ but not on ART	85% (96/113)	n initiated ART	N newly diagnosed or known HIV-positive not on ART&CD4 <250/cc³	71% (15/21)
van Rooyen, 2014 [21] South Africa, Rural	Door-to-door HB-HTS study; POC CD4-count, Written referral	30	73	64	n visited HIV clinic	N adults newly diagnosed or known HIV+ but not on ART	96% (131/137)	n initiated ART	N newly diagnosed &CD4 <350/cc³ and LTC	54% (19/35)
van Rooyen, 2014 [21] South Africa, Rural	Door-to-door HB-HTS study; POC CD4-count, Written referral	30	73	64	n visited HIV clinic	N adults newly diagnosed or known HIV+ but not on ART	96% (131/137)	n initiated ART	N known HIV+, not on ART & CD4 <350/cc³ and LTC	65% (17/26)
MacPherson, 2014 [18] Malawi, Urban	Study involving self-testing with oral test kits offered to household members (within a cluster randomised trial); Referral only	Not reported	278	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	n initiated ART	N reporting HIV+ self-test result & CD4 <350/cc³ and LTC	23% (63/376)
Shapiro, 2012 [12] South Africa, urban	Index case (TB patients) driven HB-HTS study; Referral only (letter for ART eligible/verbal for non-eligible)	15	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	n initiated ART	N HIV+ household contacts of a TB index case & CD4 <250/cc³	41% (13/32)
Shapiro, 2012 [12] South Africa, urban	Randomly selected household HB-HTS study; Interventions as above	11	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	n initiated ART	N HIV+ non- contact participants with CD4 <250/cc³	53% (10/19)
Velen, 2016 [33] South Africa, Rural & urban	Nested cohort study within control arm of cluster randomised trial; Written referral	14	26	108	n newly diagnosed and reporting entry into care	N newly diagnosed	35% (8/23)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
Community location based- (CLB-) and HB-HTS
Barnabas, 2016 [28] South Africa & Uganda, Rural	Door-to-door HB-HTS & HTS in mobile units (LTC assessed within factorial design randomised controlled trial); Randomised comparison of POC CD4-count vs clinic CD4-count & Randomised comparison of lay counsellor FU vs lay counsellor clinic facilitation vs referral only	15	992	333	n visiting an HIV clinic	N newly diagnosed & known HIV+ not on ART (Lay counsellor FU arm)	93% (419/449)	n initiated ART	N newly diagnosed & known HIV+ not on ART (Lay counsellor FU arm)	41% (185/449)
						N newly diagnosed & known HIV+ not on ART (Clinic facilitation arm)	98% (421/431)		N newly diagnosed & known HIV+ not on ART (Clinic facilitation arm)	37% (161/431)
						N newly diagnosed & known HIV+ not on ART (Referral only arm)	89% (378/423)		N newly diagnosed & known HIV+ not on ART (Referral only arm)	34% (142/423)
Parker, 2015 [30] Swaziland, Rural	Door-to-door HB-HTS implementation; Written referral, Phone reminder, Phone/FU for missed visit	4	242	12	n registered in pre-ART care	N newly diagnosed	34% (135/398)	n initiated ART	N newly diagnosed & CD4 <350/cc³ and LTC	52% (22/42)
Parker, 2015 [30] Swaziland, Rural	HTS in tents at several community locations; Interventions as above	5	96	12	n registered in pre-ART care	N newly diagnosed	34% (135/398)	n initiated ART	N newly diagnosed & CD4 <350/cc³ and LTC	52% (22/42)
Community location based HTS (CLB-HTS)
Bassett, 2015 [23] South Africa, Urban	Mobile units at taxi stands, markets, and sporting grounds; Phlebotomy for CD4-count done at time of M-HTS, clients who retrieved results referred for HIV care	10	455	455	n retrieved CD4-count (within 90 days) OR initiated ART literacy (at any time)	N newly diagnosed	10% (45/455)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
Chamie, 2012 [13] Uganda, Rural	Multi-disease campaign held at community locations; POC CD4-count, Verbal referral	8	82	28	n attending at least one clinic appointment	N newly diagnosed	34% (25/64)	n initiated ART	N newly diagnosed & CD4 ≤100/cc³ and LTC	83% (5/6)
Govindasamy, 2013 [24] South Africa, Urban & peri-urban	HTS provided five days per week at work sites (i.e. farms), outside various community locations; POC CD4-count, Written referral	6	294	Not reported	n attended HCF within ≤1mth if CD4≤200/cc³; ≤3mth if CD4 201-350/cc³; ≤6mth if CD4>350/cc³	N newly diagnosed CD4≤200/cc³	38% (18/48)	n on ART at 1mth follow-up	N newly diagnosed adults & CD4 ≤200/cc³and LTC	83% (15/18)
						N newly diagnosed CD4 201-350/cc³	53% (44/83)
						N newly diagnosed CD4>350/cc³	53% (77/145)
Hatcher, 2012 [16] Kenya, Urban	HTS in tents in six community sites; POC-CD4-count, Referral	Not reported	808	Not reported	n linked to care	N tested HIV+ and not in HIV care	10m: 81% (393/483)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
Kranzer, 2012¹ ^[²⁵^] South Africa, Urban	HTS in a van parked at a township shopping centre/ front of a primary school; Up to 7 attempts to contact (by phone or in-person) if CD4 <350/cc³	11	102	Not reported	n linked to care	N newly diagnosed & CD4 ≤350/cc³	79% (26/33)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
Labhardt, 2014 [11] Lesotho, Rural	Community gatherings in villages followed by multi-disease services (within a cluster randomised trial); Referral only	8	75	Not reported	n linked to care	N newly diagnosed	25% (19/75)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
Larson, 2012 [26] South Africa, Setting Not reported	HTS in mobile units and tents/gazebos in taxi ranks/ shopping malls, POC CD4-count for some ³, Referral, Telephone FU	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	n completed referral visit	N tested HIV+	54% (172/316)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported
van Zyl, 2015 [22] South Africa Rural + urban	Mobile-HTS; Telephone FU	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported	n tested HIV+ and ART eligibility assessed.	N tested HIV+	51% (563/1096)	Not reported	Not reported	Not reported

*This proportion varied between studies with respect to whether it included individuals previously diagnosed and self-reporting HIV-positive status or only those who were newly diagnosed.

1. Incentives provided for study participation (not for linkage-to-care)

2. ART eligibility criteria not reported

3. If nurse providing M-HTS had equipment