rss
Sex Transm Infect 2008;84:i17-i23 doi:10.1136/sti.2008.030452
  • Supplement

Comparison of adult HIV prevalence from national population-based surveys and antenatal clinic surveillance in countries with generalised epidemics: implications for calibrating surveillance data

This article has been Unlocked
  1. E Gouws1,
  2. V Mishra2,
  3. T B Fowler3
  1. 1
    Epidemiology and Analysis Division; Evidence, Monitoring and Policy Department; Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), Geneva, Switzerland
  2. 2
    Demographic and Health Research Division, Macro International Inc, Calverton, Maryland, USA
  3. 3
    US Census Bureau, Washington, USA
  1. Eleanor Gouws, Epidemiology and Analysis Division, Evidence, Monitoring and Policy Department, Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), Geneva, Switzerland; Gouwse{at}unaids.org
  • Accepted 12 May 2008

Abstract

Background: Estimates of the impact of HIV in countries with generalised epidemics are generally based on antenatal clinic surveillance data collected over time. In an attempt to obtain geographically more representative estimates of HIV prevalence, many countries are now also conducting national population-based surveys in which HIV testing is included. We compare adult HIV prevalence estimates from antenatal clinic surveillance to those from national population-based surveys to assess the implications for calibrating surveillance data.

Methods: HIV prevalence estimates derived from fitting prevalence curves to antenatal clinic surveillance data are statistically compared to prevalence from national population-based surveys using data from 26 countries with generalised epidemics for the year in which the survey was conducted. Appropriate transformations are applied to inform the correction factors needed to adjust prevalence in countries where population-based surveys have not been conducted.

Results: HIV prevalence derived from antenatal clinic surveillance data generally overestimate population-based survey prevalence by about 20% (95% confidence interval: 10% to 30%) in both urban and rural areas.

Conclusions: In countries where national population-based HIV surveys have been conducted, survey estimates of HIV prevalence (adjusted for potential survey biases as appropriate) can be used directly to calibrate antenatal clinic surveillance data. In countries where national HIV surveys have not been conducted, HIV prevalence derived from antenatal clinic surveillance data should be multiplied by about 0.8 to adjust for overestimation.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests: None.

  • Contributors: EG conducted the statistical analysis presented in this paper and wrote the first draft of the paper. All authors provided input to the analysis and contributed to writing the final version of the paper.

  • Disclaimer: This paper is released to inform interested parties of ongoing research and to encourage discussion. The views expressed on methodological issues are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the US Census Bureau.

This article has been Unlocked

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.