Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 May 6;15(5):e0232347. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232347

Effects of a peer educator program for HIV status disclosure and health system strengthening: Findings from a clinic-based disclosure support program in Mozambique

Carol Dawson-Rose 1, Sarah A Gutin 1, Florindo Mudender 2, Elsa Hunguana 2, Sebastian Kevany 1,*
Editor: Kwasi Torpey3
PMCID: PMC7202645  PMID: 32374752

Abstract

Background

In Mozambique, HIV counseling and testing (HCT) rates are low and the cascade (or continuum) of care is poor. Perhaps more importantly, low disclosure rates and low uptake of joint testing are also related to both (1) limitations on access to services and (2) the availability of trained staff. We describe the implementation and impact of a disclosure support implemented by peer educators (PE).

Methods

Ten PEs, previously trained in basic HIV and post-test counseling, completed additional training on providing disclosure support for newly-diagnosed persons living with HIV (PLH).

Results

Of the 6,092 persons who received HCT, 677 (11.1%) tested positive. Any newly-diagnosed PLH who was tested when PEs were present (606 / 677) was approached about participating in the disclosure program; of these, 94.2% of PLH (n = 574) agreed to participate. Of these, at follow-up (between 1 day and 3 months later, depending on client inclination and availability) 91.9% (n = 528) said that they had disclosed their HIV infection, of whom 66.9% (n = 384) were female and 24.1% (n = 144) male. In turn, 92.7% of partners (n = 508) who had received HIV-related exposure information were tested; of these, 78.7% (n = 400) were found to be HIV-positive. Of the latter, 96.3% (n = 385) were then seen by health care providers and referred for further diagnosis and treatment.

Conclusions

Supporting newly-diagnosed PLH is important both for their own health and that of others. For the newly-diagnosed, there are extensive challenges related to understanding the implications of their illness; social support from clinical care teams can be vital in planning and coping. Our study has shown that such support of PLH is also crucial to disclosure, in part via improving awareness of positive health implications for (and from) family, friends and other support networks.

1. Introduction and background

The UNAIDS 95-95-95 goals—90% of people living with HIV (PLH) knowing their status, 90% receiving antiretroviral therapy, and 90% of those on antiretroviral therapy with fully suppressed viral loads–have been proposed as achievable by 2020. [1] Mozambique reported an overall HIV prevalence rate of 10.8% in adults between ages 15 to 49 years in 2015. [2] HIV prevalence rates vary throughout the country, and were reported regionally to be as high as 29%. [3] By 2016, Mozambique had reported 83,000 new HIV infections and 62,000 AIDS-related deaths. There were 1,800,000 PLH in 2016, among whom only 54% were accessing antiretroviral therapy. [4] Relatedly, HIV counseling and testing (HCT) rates are low, and the cascade (or continuum) of care is poor both because (1) the health care system lacks capacity for chronic disease management and (2) disclosure (i.e. communicating HIV status to others) and joint testing with partners (e.g. couples-based treatment and care systems) are highly stigmatized. [5] Perhaps more importantly, low disclosure rates and low uptake of joint testing are also related to limitations on access to services and the availability of trained staff. In this context, it has become increasingly important to leverage the presence, availability, and interest of those who have tested for HIV to help improve testing rates and identify new infections in partners or other network connections.

Although demographic and health surveys have significantly contributed to the understanding of the Mozambican epidemic, the country also needs improved epidemiological data to better understand the extent of HIV infection—as well as stronger prevention and care service provision in the health system—to have any chance of reaching the 95-95-95 goals. From what is known about HIV incidence and prevalence, unmet needs also include linking new cases to care and treatment and retention in care. Strategies such as community-based voluntary counselling and testing, community mobilization, and post-test support services represent related advancements and efforts in recent years, along with an increased emphasis on adaptability in program and service delivery to improve utilization. [6]

In particular, identification of new infections are critical for HIV prevention. Amongst other benefits, this helps to advance the availability of highly effective treatment, which is considered a vital HIV prevention effort [7] in high-incidence communities, as well as having been demonstrated to impact community viral load. [8] Improved access to HCT plays in to ‘test and treat’ strategies that have been demonstrated to dramatically alter the course of the epidemic. [9] A further requirement for highly effective treatment roll-out is determination of community viral load (i.e. the combination of all reported viral loads within a specific community), which has been used as a proxy for overall transmission potential. [10]

As a first step toward documenting community viral load and thereby improving availability of both prevention and treatment for HIV, as well as numerous other benign consequences for PLH such as social support, transportation assistance, and encouragement to adhere to treatment, innovative approaches to enroll new populations in HCT are required. Both contact tracing and partner notification (the joint processes of confidentially and sensitively identifying relevant contacts of a person with an infectious disease and ensuring that such contacts are aware of their exposure) are also critical to improving both HIV surveillance and uptake of relevant services. [11]

Beyond its use in contact tracing, partner notification (i.e. disclosure of HIV status to partners) can also take place in tandem with supporting PLH to disclose their status to at-risk contacts. Strategies to notify (for example) family members include the integration of Partner Counseling and Referral Services (PCRS) in to the spectrum of care for PLH. [12] PCRS involves HCT combined with partner tracing and contact information provision, in order to both facilitate disclosure and offer further HCT. In turn, the model uses peer educators (PEs) to educate PLH and assist them to encourage partners or family members to attend HCT. Choices for newly-diagnosed PLH under the PRCS system include self-disclosure to partner, PCRS staff disclosing status, or joint PLH and PCRS staff disclosure of status to partner, contact or family member in the clinical setting.

In Mozambique, PCRS has been further adapted as part of a Positive Health, Dignity and Prevention (PHDP) approach to ensure PLH are actively involved in generating health care provision solutions at both local and national levels. [13] Locally, PHDP is known as Positive Prevention (PP) because of its sensitivity to the results of high levels of HIV stigma (e.g. disclosure to potential contacts leading to risk of physical harm, ostracization or domestic violence. [14] As a result, PLH in Mozambique often avoid traditional systems of disclosure to avoid bringing harm to their contacts, themselves, or their community.

Because PLH are required to reveal the identity of the contacts in contact tracing and PCRS approaches, it has become essential to create a supportive environment that promotes safe and innovative disclosure techniques. These more sensitized approaches also included support for serostatus disclosure to partners and family members in a structured and supervised way, and at the initial stage of understanding the implications of their diagnosis. Such approaches also improve social support to those infected via their social networks [15], as well as providing personalized and confidential health education opportunities related to HIV.

Here, we describe the implementation and impact of a disclosure support program developed jointly by the University of California, San Francisco (International Training and Education Center for Health, or I-TECH) and the Mozambique Ministry of Health, and based on a disclosure support initiative implemented by peer educators (PE). PEs in this case are defined as HIV-positive voluntary workers without formal clinical training; who were also patients at the clinic; and who worked in combination with a trained counselor cadre. The use of PEs in this context has been demonstrated to have a range of positive effects, related to adherence and psychosocial support. [16] It is also designed, like other HIV interventions in low-resource settings [17] to optimize use of available local resources in a structured yet accessible way. Thus, this differs from more formal or more highly resourced disclosure interventions. [18] This clinic-based strategy was designed to encourage PLH to both (1) disclose their status to their partners and (2) in turn encourage those partners to be tested for HIV under the PP / PHDP paradigm.

2. Methodology

Context and program site

The Centro de Saude José Macamo (CSJM) is located in Maputo, the capital of and largest city in Mozambique. The hospital includes one of three outpatient clinics provided by the Ministry of Health, and in 2015 was responsible for providing primary care for 93,876 patients. The clinic offers antenatal, pediatric and adult primary care, HIV specialty care, and HCT. Patients are also offered HIV tests in the antenatal care and general medical care departments; where necessary referrals are provided to specialized HIV care.

Provider training and timelines

Ten PEs, previously trained in basic HIV and post-test counseling, completed additional training on providing disclosure support for newly-diagnosed PLH. This training was adapted from an existing PP initiative that was already being implemented in Mozambican Health Facilities; [19] while the partner counseling and referral services (PCRS) system [20] was based on a developed country model to enable PLH to communicate with partners (current or past) who may have been exposed to HIV. Of note, disclosure support was one component of the full training (on dignity, positive health and prevention) curriculum, adapted to a four-hour PE training at the clinic.

Theoretical content was taught over two half-day training sessions, with clinical skills further developed over a two-week period using simulation and role-playing. I-TECH trainers (experts on PHDP) conducted the sessions. [21] Training of the ten PEs began in December 2013; the supported disclosure program was rolled out at CSJM in January 2014, and implementation and data collection occurred over the ensuing nine-month period. Of note, PEs worked in the hospital HCT clinic on weekday mornings, and did not work in the antenatal clinic or inpatient wards.

Peer disclosure approach

During discussion of HIV test results, PEs helped clients to explore ways to disclose to partners (e.g. sexual or injecting drug users) about possible exposure so that the latter could, in turn, make informed decisions on accessing HCT. The PE also provided emotional support, answered questions and concerns, and explored communication options between clients and partners. In both its original form and the local adaptation, PCRS was a free, voluntary, and confidential service. [22]

In order to further facilitate such communications, PEs also provided information on the four identified and UNAIDS-approved steps of disclosure to HIV-positive clients used in PRCS. The first step, Who Will You Tell?, helped PLH to identify the first people to whom their diagnosis would be revealed along with any other relevant information (e.g. potential source of infection) as well as techniques for gauging and managing reactions, including the possibility of a negative or violent response. The second step, How Will You Tell?, explored how PLH would disclose and included: (1) addressing the need for disclosure in terms of HIV transmission and prevention; (2) problems, concerns, and benefits of disclosure; and (3) managing feelings about disclosure. Of note, PEs were also trained to consider the emotional state of PLH during this step.

The third step, Setting the Stage for Disclosure, explored when and where disclosure interactions would occur including (1) the need for a safe and private space; (2) how PLH could answer questions calmly and factually; and (3) alternative settings if the reaction is likely to be violent or destructive. The fourth step, Practicing Disclosure, used role playing to assist PLH to prepare for disclosure (as well as in preparing for further responses and potential reactions). Finally, a follow-up appointment was scheduled once the PLH felt competent to disclose so that both (1) disclosure interactions could be retrospectively discussed and explored and (2) partners could accompany PLH to the clinic for further HCT.

Treatment demand generation and additional PE services

At an early stage of the program, PEs identified a pre-existing lack of clarity about how to access HIV treatment among PLH and other testing clients. At the time of implementation, HIV-related treatment was determined by stage of HIV disease (CD4 count); newly-diagnosed PLH often required assistance from peers in accessing such diagnostic services. In turn, PEs reported that they would be able to offer both more tangible support and more tailored health education if (1) stage of infection was known to both client and counselor, and (2) PLH would be able to share this information with partners or other contacts during disclosure.

The program was therefore adapted to offer newly-diagnosed PLH more streamlined access to HIV staging and treatment through a managed and tracked referral from PE to laboratory services for CD4 testing, as well as associated links to medical providers for treatment initiation, as a form of treatment demand generation. In addition, PEs identified gaps in existing community-based organization (CBO) services to provide home-based support to PLH and their partners: while initially PEs were expected to remain in the clinic setting, resource needs resulted in their also visiting patient communities. As a result, home visiting became a further key component of the ongoing support the PE provided. Of note, the latter sub-initiative was managed in a way that maintained privacy and confidentiality, and no stigma-related incidents were reported.

Data collection and analysis

We reviewed service utilization and patient and partner disclosure levels associated with facility-based PE disclosure support. PLH participants were recruited by PEs following their receipt of HIV-positive test results. Recruitment took place only on days that PEs were available at the clinic site, and PLH were eligible to participate if (1) they received their test results in antenatal care, general medicine, or HCT; and (2) were between 18 and 65 years of age.

As part of the consent process, PEs provided newly-diagnosed PLH with an index card that included instructions both on how to disclose results and as an identifier for use when and if they, or those to whom they disclosed their results, returned to the health care facility for further testing. The card also contained PE initials and the patient program ID number. In addition, index card data included patient demographics such as age and gender as well as (1) patient intention to disclose HIV status; (2) patient feedback about their experience with disclosure; and (3) whether or not their partners (or others) accompanied them back to the health facility for HCT.

Ethical considerations

PLH gave verbal consent to take part in the PE session, separate from their consent for HCT, and a standardized data collection form was used by PEs. PLH did not have to sign a consent form, as the Mozambique Ministry of Health determined that data collection was part of routine public sector care offered to PLH. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Bioethics Committee for Health (Mozambique Ministry of Health) and the Committee on Human Research (University of California, San Francisco). All data collected by the program, as well as any other patient information PEs or program coordinators required, was confidential and stored in a secure and locked data storage area in the hospital PE office.

3. Results

Of the 6,092 persons who received HCT at CSJM during the implementation period, 677 (11.1%) tested positive. Any newly-diagnosed PLH who was tested when PEs were present (606 / 677) was approached about participating in the disclosure program; of these, 94.2% of PLH (n = 574) agreed to participate. Most PLH participants were recruited from the HCT center (n = 401 or 69.8%) while 27.5% (n = 158) were tested and recruited during routine medical visits; only 2.6% (n = 15) were tested in and recruited from the antenatal HCT unit. 95.4% of women approached (n = 415) and 93% of men (n = 159) agreed to participate. Of note, those who preferred not to participate cited domestic violence, infidelity, and stigma as reasons for non-involvement. The average age of participants was 32 years (Table 1).

Table 1. Participant demographics and point of access.

Potential Participants Approached n %
Female 435 71.7
Male 171 28.2
PLH Enrolled n %
Female 415 72.2
Male 159 27.7
PLH Point of Access n %
HIV test center 401 69.8
Medical visit 158 27.5
Antenatal HCT 15 2.6

After participants attended the PE disclosure session, 95.4% (n = 548) said that they would disclose, though whether disclosure would be to their primary sexual partner or to others was not defined (Table 2). Of these, at follow-up (between 1 day and 3 months later, as per client availability) 91.9% (n = 528) said that they had disclosed their HIV infection, of whom 66.9% (n = 384) were female and 24.1% (n = 144) male (Table 3). In turn, 92.7% of partners (n = 508) who had received HIV-related exposure information were tested; of these 78.7% (n = 400) were found to be HIV-positive. Of the latter, 96.3% (n = 385) were then seen by health care providers and referred for further diagnosis and treatment (Table 4). Of note, the use of referral cards was frequently cited as a reason for partner attendance, though this was not formally quantified.

Table 2. Intention by PLH to disclose HIV test results.

n %
Yes 548 95.4
No 7 1.2
Don’t Know 19 3.3

Table 3. Self-reported disclosure of serostatus to partner.

n %
Female 384 66.9
Male 144 25.1

Table 4. PLH partners who received disclosure and tested for HIV.

n %
Partners notified who then tested 508 96.2
HIV-positive partners 400 78.7
PLH partners subsequently attending CSJM 385 96.3

4. Discussion

As a result of the program, 385 PLH partners were connected to health and social services for their previously unknown or undetected HIV infection. While it is not possible to objectively demonstrate how this may have impacted community viral load, it is conceivable (based on findings from past research [23] that many of both the original participants and their partners subsequently changed HIV-transmission behaviors. In the Mozambique context, our findings may therefore be particularly useful in terms of (1) strengthening cascade of care systems; (2) monitoring community viral load; (3) supporting disclosure via integrating PLH in to the national response; and (4) developing other innovative methods to integrate HIV prevention in high prevalence areas with other clinical services. In this regard, both empowerment of PLH and integration of HIV prevention into care are central concepts of Mozambique’s National AIDS Plan. [24]

As noted above, Mozambique faces high needs for surveillance information [25] to improve and catalyze prevention and treatment efforts. [26] The country is also located in a region where the availability of trained health care workers is limited. The use of PEs may help to overcome this barrier. Other potential benefits of the program in Mozambique (and other) context includes partner disclosure as an HIV prevention approach, [27] as well as our results suggesting broader feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. While we did not collect data specifically and feasibility the documented uptake of agreeing to speak to a PE about disclosure support among adults who tested seropositive for HIV (>90% across all sectors) and more than 95% of those who received the PE session reported an intent to disclose demonstrates acceptability.

The results of this study also both add to existing PCRS literature and align with existing research findings on PCRS as an effective tool for HIV prevention. [28] Since PCRS is relatively less studied than other HCT-related approaches, our findings also (1) help to addresses knowledge gaps, and (2) suggest the utility of using PEs (as well as those with more advanced training) for PRCS.

Limitations

Nearly 80% of partners who presented for testing were HIV positive. There is, therefore, a high probability that many PLH who underwent PE already knew, or suspected, that their partner was HIV-positive–which may in turn have related to disclosure. Further, no control measures were used in our study, so it is difficult to determine if the PE intervention led to a change in willingness or openness to disclose. Moreover, this was not a randomized trial. Therefore, it is impossible to determine if PEs had an effect on disclosures. In addition, our resources did not permit broader evaluation around the acceptability and effectiveness of this intervention.

More specifically, our study relied on self-reporting of disclosure, and therefore actual levels may have been lower, particularly among peripheral partners and given HIV’s status as a stigmatized diagnosis in Mozambique. However, since a high proportion (96.2%) of partners subsequently presented for HCT, a clear level of verifiable disclosure took place. Further, it is possible that some partners may have previously tested and knew their positive status, or were not planning on attending until they received a referral card from their partner. In all cases, since this was a convenience sample it is difficult to generalize our findings. Also in this regard, individuals (PLH or others) seeking services on those limited occasions when PEs were not attending the clinic were not captured, which may limit the generalizability of these findings.

In addition, some PLH may have had more than one partner tested, which may affect interpretation of our results. Similarly, it was not possible to conduct interviews with contacts to see if cards or other efforts helped in their willingness to get tested. As such, we do not have data on the broader effectiveness of the intervention. Of note, there were not resources or time to collect data prior to PE implementation. Through our work with the PEs, however, this was identified, anecdotally, as a need. Of note, this is included as a component of PDHP. Also of note, from the outset, there was a positive response to the intervention implementation, and the study team did not observe a related change in the absolute number of PLWH who reported disclosure, based on anecdotal information from PEs.

Finally, while there appears to be high utilization of our intervention, it is not clear from our data whether the peer educators’ role in facilitating disclosure helped PLHIV or their partners access HIV testing or care. Because we did not have the capacity to track the denominators of those PLWH that recently disclosed, this issue presents a major limitation. However, the study team relied on data on reports that came to the health care facility for testing, and did not have human subjects approval to approach individuals in their home, or in the community—only in the health facility.

5. Conclusions

Supporting newly-diagnosed PLH is important both for their own health and that of others. For the newly-diagnosed there are also extensive challenges related to understanding the implications of their illness, and social support from clinical care teams can be vital in planning and coping. Our study has shown that such support of PLH is also crucial to disclosure, in part via improving awareness of the positive health implications for and from family, friends and other support networks.

Also in this context, in order to achieve 95-95-95 targets in Mozambique a variety of creative approaches to both improving surveillance and linking those at risk of infection to HIV treatment and care are needed. To this end, our study demonstrated that (1) many PLH were comfortable with disclosing their HIV status to their primary sexual partner, at least in part due to PE support; and (2) that the program increased the number of registered users of HIV treatment and care. Equally importantly, this study has demonstrated that a relatively unskilled cadre of PEs were successful in identifying a high number of PLH that may otherwise have gone undiagnosed or unreported in a context of low workforce availability. Finally, the identification by PEs of systems to facilitate earlier CD4 testing may be considered to have improved the HIV service delivery model in Mozambique.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

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

References

  • 1.Abuelezam NN, McCormick AW, Surface ED, Fussell T, Freedberg KA, Lipsitch M, et al. Modelling the epidemiologic impact of achieving UNAIDS fast-track 90-90-90 and 95-95-95 targets in South Africa. Epidemiology & Infection. 2019;147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Human Development Report. Work for human development. Briefing note for countries on the 2015 Human Development Report. Mozambique. 2015. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/MOZ.pdf
  • 3.Feldblum PJ, Enosse S, Dubé K, Arnaldo P. HIV prevalence and incidence in a cohort of women at higher risk for HIV acquisition in Chokwe, southern Mozambique. PLoS One. 2014; 9(5), e97547 10.1371/journal.pone.0097547 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Auld AF, Shiraishi RW (2016). A decade of antiretroviral therapy scale-up in Mozambique: evaluation of outcome trends and new models of service delivery among more than 300,000 patients enrolled during 2004–2013. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 2016;73(2), e11–e22. 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001137 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pearson CR, Micek MA, Gloyd SS. One year after ART initiation: psychosocial factors associated with stigma among HIV-positive Mozambicans. AIDS and Behavior. 2009; 13(6), 1189 10.1007/s10461-009-9596-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kevany S, Khumalo-Sakutukwa G. Health diplomacy and the adaptation of global health interventions to local needs in sub-Saharan Africa and Thailand: evaluating findings from Project Accept (HPTN 043). BMC Public Health. 2012; 12(1), 459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Johnson M. Global partnerships to support noncommunicable disease care in low and middle-income countries: lessons from HIV/AIDS. AIDS. 2018; 32, S75–S82. 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001880 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Das M, McFarland W, Colfax GN. Decreases in community viral load are accompanied by reductions in new HIV infections in San Francisco. PloS One. 2010; 5(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.De Cock KM, Barker JL, Baggaley R, El Sadr W. Where are the positives? HIV testing in sub-Saharan Africa in the era of test and treat. AIDS. 2019; 33(2), 349–352. 10.1097/QAD.0000000000002096 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Herbeck J, Mittler J, Gottlieb G, Mullins J. An HIV epidemic model based on viral load dynamics: Value in assessing empirical trends in HIV virulence and community viral load. PLOS Computational Biology. 2014; 10(6), e1003673 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chen M. Australasian contact tracing manual. 2010. http://www.ctm.ashm.org.au/Default.asp?PublicationID=6&ParentSectionID=P6&SectionID=690 [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interventions to identify HIV-positive people through partner counseling and referral services. 2014. http://www.thecommunityguide.org/hiv/partnercounseling.html.
  • 13.UNAIDS. Positive Health, Dignity and Prevention: Operational Guidelines. 2013. Geneva and Amsterdam.
  • 14.Fifield J. Social support and violence-prone relationships as predictors of disclosure of HIV status among newly diagnosed HIV-positive South Africans. AIDS and Behavior. 2018; 22(10), 3287–3295. 10.1007/s10461-018-2136-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kalichman SC, DiFonzo K. Stress, social support, and HIV-status disclosure to family and friends among HIV-positive men and women. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2003; 26(4), 315–332. 10.1023/a:1024252926930 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Raker AR, Feldman MB, Hile SJ, Chandraratna S. Positive Side Effects: The Perceived Health and Psychosocial Benefits of Delivering an HIV Self-Management Program for Peer Educators Living With HIV. The Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care: JANAC. 2019. Jul. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Marseille EA, Kevany S, Ahmed I, Feleke G, Graham B, Heller T, et al. Case management to improve adherence for HIV-infected patients receiving antiretroviral therapy in Ethiopia: a micro-costing study. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation. 2011. December;9(1):18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Murphy DA, Armistead L, Herbeck DM. Pilot trial of a disclosure intervention for HIV+ mothers: The TRACK program. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology. 2011; 79(2), 203 10.1037/a0022896 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rose CD, Gutin SA, Reyes M. Adapting positive prevention interventions for international settings: applying US evidence to epidemics in developing countries. Journal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care. 2011; 22(1), 38–52. 10.1016/j.jana.2010.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Myers R. S., Feldacker C., Cesár F., Paredes Z., Augusto G., Muluana C., et al. (2016). Acceptability and effectiveness of assisted human immunodeficiency virus partner services in Mozambique: results from a pilot program in a public, urban clinic. Sexually transmitted diseases, 43(11), 690–695. 10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000529 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gutin SA, Cummings B, Jaiantilal P, Johnson K, Mbofana F, Rose CD. Qualitative evaluation of a Positive Prevention training for health care providers in Mozambique. Evaluation and program planning. 2014; 43, 38–47. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2013.10.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hogben M. The effectiveness of HIV partner counseling and referral services in increasing identification of HIV-positive individuals: a systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2007; 33(2), S89–S100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Moitra E. Pilot randomized controlled trial of acceptance-based behavior therapy to promote HIV acceptance, HIV disclosure, and retention in medical care. AIDS and Behavior. 2017; 21(9), 2641–2649. 10.1007/s10461-017-1780-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Korenromp EL, Gobet B, Fazito E. Impact and cost of the HIV/AIDS national strategic plan for Mozambique, 2015–2019—Projections with the Spectrum/Goals Model. PloS One. 2015; 10(11), e0142908 10.1371/journal.pone.0142908 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Williams BG. Epidemiological Trends for HIV in Southern Africa: Implications for Reaching Elimination Targets. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2015; 12: 196–206. 10.1007/s11904-015-0264-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Vermund S, Sheldon E, and Sidat M. Southern Africa: The highest priority region for HIV prevention and care interventions. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2015; 12(2): 191–195. 10.1007/s11904-015-0270-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Golden MR. Assisted partner services for HIV: ready to go global. AIDS. 2017; 31(13), 1891–1893. 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001534 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Golden M. HIV Partner Counseling and Referral Services: Finally Getting Beyond the Name. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 33 (S2): S84–S85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kwasi Torpey

14 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-29478

Effects of a peer educator program for HIV status disclosure and health system strengthening: Findings from a clinic-based disclosure support program in Mozambique.

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Kevany,

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.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by  28th Feb 2020. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kwasi Torpey, MD PhD MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include in your Methods section the date ranges over which you recruited participants to this study.

3. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

4. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include authors Carol Dawson-Rose, Sarah Gutin, Florindo Mudender and Elsa Hunguana.

5. We note you have included tables to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to each Table.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: This paper describes the implementation and impact of a disclosure support intervention utilizing peer educators. This paper describes a unique intervention in a setting with exceptionally high rates of HIV and clear barriers around disclosure of HIV status. Overall, there appeared to be areas where the intervention could have been evaluated more thoroughly, which effected the overall impact of this study. I have the following suggestions for the submission:

Abstract

There were a lot of grammatical errors in the abstract throughout and would recommend the authors edit.

Introduction

The introduction is well written overall and established the significance for this intervention in this setting. The authors use a lot of acronyms in this section and should ensure that they have always written out the meaning when first used (e.g. Paragraph 3, HCT).

Methods

Again, well written. However, there does not appear to be a lot of analysis around the feasibility or acceptability of this implemented intervention. It was nice to hear how feedback from the peer educators was incorporated into the intervention, but no mention of whether this changed the number of PLWH who disclosed to their networks is mentioned in the study. This would also have been nice to conduct interviews with their contacts to see if they felt the cards helped in their ability to get tested.

Results

While there appears to be high utilization of this intervention, it is not clear whether the peer educators’ role in facilitating disclosure helped PLHIV or their partners get HIV testing or care.

Discussion

The first paragraph mentions that this study cannot demonstrate that the intervention impacted community viral load, but this has been shown in other research. This may have been better placed in the introduction, framing the relevance of this type of intervention in Mozambique.

The second paragraph makes several points about the impact of the intervention that could be fleshed out.

Overall, this paper describes implementation of an intervention in a highly impacted and relevant setting, but lacks true evaluation around the acceptability and effectiveness of this intervention which diminishes its contribution to the field. This may be better presented in a shorter format, like a brief report.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript, "Effects of a peer educator program for HIV status disclosure and health system strengthening: Findings from a clinic-based disclosure support program in Mozambique" (PONE-D-19-29478) presents findings from a modestly sized, uncontrolled pilot study in which peer educators (PEs) meet with newly diagnosed HIV patients and encourage them to disclose to their partners. Strengths of the study include its use of PEs, rather than a highly skilled clinical professional, as well as the positive outcome of a large number of HIV positive persons being identified/seeking testing because of the disclosure process. Despite the importance of this topic, significant flaws in this study undermine enthusiasm:

General

1. This might be a personal preference, but it appears the field is more commonly using "PLH" rather than "PLHIV."

2. From the abstract and throughout the manuscript, it is quite confusing that following ranged from "1 day to 3 months." Can the authors clarify this process?

Introduction

1. The motivation for this study/intervention is somewhat muddled in the Intro. It appears that the priority is disclosure to partners but this is not made clear until the end of this section. Additionally, the focus relates to connecting additional individuals who might be HIV positive to testing and counseling. This, too, is somewhat unclear.

2. In contrast, very little is discussed about the benefits of disclosure to the PLH (e.g., social support, transportation to clinic, encouragement to take medication). This could be expanded or if it is not a priority, perhaps limit discussion of disclosure to family, friends, etc.

3. Very little is said about the background related to peer counseling in the HIV field. Why is the use of PEs attractive? How would this contrast with other disclosure interventions?

Method

1. Who trained the PEs?

2. Was PE manualized? The results seem to suggest that PE was a 1-session intervention but no comments about the duration of PE are provided in the Method.

Results

1. No specific outcome measures were used; therefore, it is difficult to interpret results related to disclosure (and connecting partners to testing/care). Did willingness to disclose change or improve with PE? This is unclear and severely undermines confidence that PE was specifically responsible for the disclosures.

2. Nearly 80% of partners who came in for testing were HIV positive. Did the PLH who underwent PE already know (or suspect) that their partner was positive? Could this relate to disclosure?

Discussion

1. The Limitations section significantly downplays the flaws in this study (and does not mention the biggest issues). Again, no measures were used so it is very difficult to determine if PE lead to a change in willingness/openness to disclose. Moreover, this was not a randomized trial. Therefore, it is impossible to determine if PE had an effect on disclosures. Authors might want to consider focusing on feasibility and acceptability in a revision given the pilot nature of their work.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ethan Moitra, Ph.D.

[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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Kwasi Torpey

14 Apr 2020

Effects of a peer educator program for HIV status disclosure and health system strengthening: Findings from a clinic-based disclosure support program in Mozambique.

PONE-D-19-29478R1

Dear Mr Kevany,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Professor Kwasi Torpey, MD PhD MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Kwasi Torpey

27 Apr 2020

PONE-D-19-29478R1

Effects of a peer educator program for HIV status disclosure and health system strengthening:  Findings from a clinic-based disclosure support program in Mozambique.

Dear Dr. Kevany:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Kwasi Torpey

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLos Queries and Repliescdr.3.28.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES