Guy Harling1,2,3,4, Alexander C Tsai3,5,6. 1. Institute for Global Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 2. Africa Health Research Institute, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. 3. Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 4. MRC/Wits Rural Public Health & Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 5. Center for Global Health, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 6. Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the development of several efficacious HIV prevention and treatment methods in the past 2 decades, HIV continues to spread globally. Uptake of interventions is nonrandomly distributed across populations. Such inequality is socially patterned and reinforced by homophily arising from both social selection (becoming friends with similar people) and influence (becoming similar to friends). METHODS: We conducted a narrative review to describe how social network analysis methods-including egocentric, sociocentric, and respondent-driven sampling designs-provide tools to measure key populations, to understand how epidemics spread, and to evaluate intervention take-up. RESULTS: Social network analysis-informed designs can improve intervention effectiveness by reaching otherwise inaccessible populations. They can also improve intervention efficiency by maximizing spillovers, through social ties, to at-risk but susceptible individuals. Social network analysis-informed designs thus have the potential to be both more effective and less unequal in their effects, compared with social network analysis-naïve approaches. Although social network analysis-informed designs are often resource-intensive, we believe they provide unique insights that can help reach those most in need of HIV prevention and treatment interventions. CONCLUSION: Increased collection of social network data during both research and implementation work would provide important information to improve the roll-out of existing studies in the present and to inform the design of more data-efficient, social network analysis-informed interventions in the future. Doing so will improve the reach of interventions, especially to key populations, and to maximize intervention impact once delivered.
BACKGROUND: Despite the development of several efficacious HIV prevention and treatment methods in the past 2 decades, HIV continues to spread globally. Uptake of interventions is nonrandomly distributed across populations. Such inequality is socially patterned and reinforced by homophily arising from both social selection (becoming friends with similar people) and influence (becoming similar to friends). METHODS: We conducted a narrative review to describe how social network analysis methods-including egocentric, sociocentric, and respondent-driven sampling designs-provide tools to measure key populations, to understand how epidemics spread, and to evaluate intervention take-up. RESULTS: Social network analysis-informed designs can improve intervention effectiveness by reaching otherwise inaccessible populations. They can also improve intervention efficiency by maximizing spillovers, through social ties, to at-risk but susceptible individuals. Social network analysis-informed designs thus have the potential to be both more effective and less unequal in their effects, compared with social network analysis-naïve approaches. Although social network analysis-informed designs are often resource-intensive, we believe they provide unique insights that can help reach those most in need of HIV prevention and treatment interventions. CONCLUSION: Increased collection of social network data during both research and implementation work would provide important information to improve the roll-out of existing studies in the present and to inform the design of more data-efficient, social network analysis-informed interventions in the future. Doing so will improve the reach of interventions, especially to key populations, and to maximize intervention impact once delivered.
Authors: Jeanne M Marrazzo; Gita Ramjee; Barbra A Richardson; Kailazarid Gomez; Nyaradzo Mgodi; Gonasagrie Nair; Thesla Palanee; Clemensia Nakabiito; Ariane van der Straten; Lisa Noguchi; Craig W Hendrix; James Y Dai; Shayhana Ganesh; Baningi Mkhize; Marthinette Taljaard; Urvi M Parikh; Jeanna Piper; Benoît Mâsse; Cynthia Grossman; James Rooney; Jill L Schwartz; Heather Watts; Mark A Marzinke; Sharon L Hillier; Ian M McGowan; Z Mike Chirenje Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Babafemi O Taiwo; John A Idoko; Leah J Welty; Ihedinachi Otoh; Grace Job; Paul G Iyaji; Oche Agbaji; Patricia A Agaba; Robert L Murphy Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: David A Kim; Alison R Hwong; Derek Stafford; D Alex Hughes; A James O'Malley; James H Fowler; Nicholas A Christakis Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ágabo Macêdo da Costa E Silva; Mônica Nogueira da Guarda Reis; Thaís Augusto Marinho; Nara Rúbia de Freitas; Sheila Araújo Teles; Márcia Alves Dias de Matos; Megmar Aparecida Dos Santos Carneiro; Gonzalo Bello; Mariane Martins Araújo Stefani; Regina Maria Bringel Martins Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 5.640
Authors: Elvin H Geng; Denis Nash; Nittaya Phanuphak; Kimberly Green; Sunil Solomon; Anna Grimsrud; Annette H Sohn; Kenneth H Mayer; Till Bärnighausen; Linda-Gail Bekker Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 5.396