This week I have three possibilities to tantalize you with, one of which I am immediately set against, but feel I should read.
1. This piece in AIDS Care worries me for two surface reasons. First, the abstract suggests that it is a quantitative analysis of DHS data being published in AIDS Care, a journal I usually turn to for depth and richness, not number crunching. But I would never write something off based only on this. Of more concern is the line “Contrary to the public health literature, women of high SES were also vulnerable to HIV risk”. I am pretty there is a large literature highlighting this relationship already, which leads me to question the level of background research conducted.
2. A reminder that prevention interventions are acutely context-dependent.
3. I find it strange/disturbing how infrequently we consider the disease context of a community in measuring risk factors for HIV across large areas. This paper from Zimbabwe, via UNC Chapel Hill, is a nice reminder of the importance of cross-level interactions.
Disclaimer. These posts are based on my reading of titles and abstracts, and all papers may be of much greater/lesser interest/quality than I have concluded based on reading 200 words or fewer.