Effectiveness of a no-sex or safe-sex month in reducing HIV transmission

OBJECTIVE: To build a deterministic compartmental model for exploring the effects on the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) of a population abstaining from sex or practising only "safe" sex for one month each year. METHODS: A model of HIV transmission was built to simulate...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Benjamin Armbruster, Aaron M Lucas
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: The World Health Organization 2012-07-01
Series:Bulletin of the World Health Organization
Online Access:http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0042-96862012000700010&lng=en&tlng=en
_version_ 1797288892042313728
author Benjamin Armbruster
Aaron M Lucas
author_facet Benjamin Armbruster
Aaron M Lucas
author_sort Benjamin Armbruster
collection DOAJ
description OBJECTIVE: To build a deterministic compartmental model for exploring the effects on the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) of a population abstaining from sex or practising only "safe" sex for one month each year. METHODS: A model of HIV transmission was built to simulate the effects of the intervention (i.e. an annual no-sex or safe-sex month in which no transmission occurred) in three countries, under several optimistic assumptions. The reduction in the modelled annual incidence of transmission that was attributable to this "test" intervention was compared with that seen with an alternative intervention. In the latter, monthly incidences of transmission were each reduced by one twelfth, so that, essentially, the month-long interruption was spread evenly across a full year. FINDINGS: Over the first modelled year, the test intervention averted only 2.5% (Kenya), 3.3% (South Africa) and 1.6% (Swaziland) more HIV infections than the alternative interruption. According to the model, if the test intervention were repeated each January, it would avert only 2% (Kenya), 2% (South Africa) and 1% (Swaziland) more HIV infections over 5 years than the alternative intervention. CONCLUSION: Although it did not appear markedly more effective than the alternative intervention, the test intervention may still be more feasible and therefore worthwhile. Before the test intervention can be recommended, the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of such an annual month-long break in HIV transmission need to be assessed and compared with those of other interventions that may reduce new HIV infections, such as circumcision and concurrency-reduction campaigns.
first_indexed 2024-03-07T18:56:14Z
format Article
id doaj.art-3501d39087774840959ca79bdbda7650
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 0042-9686
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-07T18:56:14Z
publishDate 2012-07-01
publisher The World Health Organization
record_format Article
series Bulletin of the World Health Organization
spelling doaj.art-3501d39087774840959ca79bdbda76502024-03-02T00:21:16ZengThe World Health OrganizationBulletin of the World Health Organization0042-96862012-07-0190750451210.2471/BLT.11.088641S0042-96862012000700010Effectiveness of a no-sex or safe-sex month in reducing HIV transmissionBenjamin Armbruster0Aaron M Lucas1Northwestern UniversityNorthwestern UniversityOBJECTIVE: To build a deterministic compartmental model for exploring the effects on the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) of a population abstaining from sex or practising only "safe" sex for one month each year. METHODS: A model of HIV transmission was built to simulate the effects of the intervention (i.e. an annual no-sex or safe-sex month in which no transmission occurred) in three countries, under several optimistic assumptions. The reduction in the modelled annual incidence of transmission that was attributable to this "test" intervention was compared with that seen with an alternative intervention. In the latter, monthly incidences of transmission were each reduced by one twelfth, so that, essentially, the month-long interruption was spread evenly across a full year. FINDINGS: Over the first modelled year, the test intervention averted only 2.5% (Kenya), 3.3% (South Africa) and 1.6% (Swaziland) more HIV infections than the alternative interruption. According to the model, if the test intervention were repeated each January, it would avert only 2% (Kenya), 2% (South Africa) and 1% (Swaziland) more HIV infections over 5 years than the alternative intervention. CONCLUSION: Although it did not appear markedly more effective than the alternative intervention, the test intervention may still be more feasible and therefore worthwhile. Before the test intervention can be recommended, the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of such an annual month-long break in HIV transmission need to be assessed and compared with those of other interventions that may reduce new HIV infections, such as circumcision and concurrency-reduction campaigns.http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0042-96862012000700010&lng=en&tlng=en
spellingShingle Benjamin Armbruster
Aaron M Lucas
Effectiveness of a no-sex or safe-sex month in reducing HIV transmission
Bulletin of the World Health Organization
title Effectiveness of a no-sex or safe-sex month in reducing HIV transmission
title_full Effectiveness of a no-sex or safe-sex month in reducing HIV transmission
title_fullStr Effectiveness of a no-sex or safe-sex month in reducing HIV transmission
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of a no-sex or safe-sex month in reducing HIV transmission
title_short Effectiveness of a no-sex or safe-sex month in reducing HIV transmission
title_sort effectiveness of a no sex or safe sex month in reducing hiv transmission
url http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0042-96862012000700010&lng=en&tlng=en
work_keys_str_mv AT benjaminarmbruster effectivenessofanosexorsafesexmonthinreducinghivtransmission
AT aaronmlucas effectivenessofanosexorsafesexmonthinreducinghivtransmission