Table 5 Continued Year Population Structure Intervention Method Partnership Formation Outcome of Interest Validity Population is divided by sexual Behavioral (migration, Partner mixing could be HIV prevalence Strength: Performed activity level, defined as the partner turnover, random, assortative and contributed by sensitivity analysis 20117 ODEs; partner turnover rate and age dating) cross-generational natural disease Limitation: Only two age Heterosexual mixing ; Numerical mixing is also dynamic groups and considered Uganda solution HIV state of the population: fitting only ART and behavioral HIV prevalence susceptible, 4 stages HIV without account women dating changes (increasing under intervention 20146 ART; 3 HIV stages with ART and within or older than 25 years partner turnover rate as one AIDS state old. a result of ART introduction) Sex-role preference Maximum assortative, Strength: Different types of predominantly top, versatile and setting plausible (DD mixing patterns and targeted Homosexual PrEP ODE, numerical R0/ HIV prevalence predominantly bottom; maximum assortative intervention were considered Bangalore, solution 201417 while other groups India HIV status: susceptible acute, Limitation: Did not consider disassortative), chronic and pre-AIDS the behavior intervention proportionate, and due to PrEP disassortative Population are divided into 2 age Sexual partnership Percentages of each Strength: Sensitivity analysis groups (15-34and 35-64) and 2 types: one-off or repeat subpopulation was performed Homosexual HAART ODEs Monte sexual activity groups: high sexual partnership; contributing to HIV Carlo filtering Limitation: Uncertain United activity, low activity(¡=1 partners assortative, prevalence 20152 Kingdoms method parameterization (the limited per year); disassortative, availability of data) proportionate are all HIV status: HIV progression is assessed in the model; divided into 5 stages including proportionate mixing by ART use stage (by CD4 count) disease stages Highlighted articles were included in addition to the 2011 and 2012 reviews.
Table 5 Continued Year Population Structure Intervention Method Partnership Formation Outcome of Interest Validity 20117 Heterosexual Uganda Population is divided by sexual activity level, defined as the partner turnover rate and age mixing ; HIV state of the population: susceptible, 4 stages HIV without ART; 3 HIV stages with ART and one AIDS state Behavioral (migration, partner turnover, dating) ODEs; Numerical solution Partner mixing could be random, assortative and cross-generational mixing is also considered HIV prevalence contributed by natural disease dynamic Strength: Performed sensitivity analysis Limitation: Only two age groups and fitting only account women dating within or older than 25 years old. 20146 ART and behavioral changes (increasing partner turnover rate as a result of ART introduction) HIV prevalence under intervention 201417 Homosexual Bangalore, India Sex-role preference predominantly top, versatile and predominantly bottom; HIV status: susceptible acute, chronic and pre-AIDS PrEP ODE, numerical solution Maximum assortative, setting plausible (DD maximum assortative while other groups disassortative), proportionate, and disassortative R0/ HIV prevalence Strength: Different types of mixing patterns and targeted intervention were considered Limitation: Did not consider the behavior intervention due to PrEP 20152 Homosexual United Kingdoms Population are divided into 2 age groups (15-34and 35-64) and 2 sexual activity groups: high activity, low activity(¡=1 partners per year); HIV status: HIV progression is divided into 5 stages including ART use stage (by CD4 count) HAART ODEs Monte Carlo filtering method Sexual partnership types: one-off or repeat sexual partnership; assortative, disassortative, proportionate are all assessed in the model; proportionate mixing by disease stages Percentages of each subpopulation contributing to HIV prevalence Strength: Sensitivity analysis was performed Limitation: Uncertain parameterization (the limited availability of data) Highlighted articles were included in addition to the 2011 and 2012 reviews.