Gauging community responses to the WHO 2015 recommendation to provide antiretroviral treatment (ART) to all people living with HIV (PLHIV) is critical. There is limited qualitative evidence on the acceptability of this Universal Test and Treat (UTT) strategy or community understanding of the impact of ART on reducing HIV transmission, promoted as Treatment as Prevention (TasP). This article explores early understanding of UTT and TasP in 21 urban communities in South Africa and Zambia in 2013 before a community randomized trial of combination prevention—HPTN 071 (PopART). It draws on participatory research conducted in each community, which carried out group discussions and interviews with 1202 respondents and 203 structured observations. Participants were largely unfamiliar with the concepts of UTT and TasP. They were concerned about an accompanying de-emphasis on sexual behavior change. Treatment and prevention seemed, at first glance, to be experienced separately. With the exception of the prevention of mother-to-child transmission, prevention seldom came into discussions about ART. This was partly because this science had not yet been explained to many and also because it was not an easy fit. Contemplating the link between treatment and prevention, participants emphasized both PLHIV taking care of themselves through good health and preventing disease progression and the moral responsibility of PLHIV to prevent HIV transmission. To avoid igniting moralizing and blaming when introducing UTT and TasP, we should capitalize on the “taking care of yourself” legacy while boosting public responsibility through broad antistigma education and patient empowerment efforts.

To achieve UNAIDS 90:90:90 targets at population-level, knowledge of HIV status must be followed by timely linkage to care, initiation and maintenance of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for all people living with HIV (PLHIV). Interpreting quantitative patterns using qualitative data, we investigate time taken to link to care and initiate ART amongst individuals aware of their HIV-status in high HIV-prevalence urban communities in the HPTN 071 (PopART) study, a community-randomised trial of a combination HIV prevention package, including universal testing and treatment, in 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa. Data are drawn from the seven intervention communities where immediate ART irrespective if CD4 count was offered from the trial-start in 2014. Median time from HIV-diagnosis to ART initiation reduced after 2 years of delivering the intervention from 10 to 6 months in both countries but varied by gender and community of residence. Social and health system realities impact decisions made by PLHIV about ART initiation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10461-018-2335-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This paper explores contextual heterogeneity within a community randomised trial HPTN 071 (Population Effects of Antiretroviral Treatment to Reduce HIV Transmission) carried out in 21 study communities (12 Zambian, 9 South African). The trial evaluates the impact of a combination HIV prevention package (including household-based HIV counselling and testing and anti-retroviral treatment (ART) eligibility regardless of CD4-count) on HIV incidence. The selection, matching and randomisation of study communities relied on key epidemiological and demographic variables and community and stakeholder support. In 2013, following the selection of study communities, a "Broad Brush Survey" (BBS) approach was used to rapidly gather qualitative data on each study community, prior to the implementation of the trial intervention. First-year process indicator intervention data (2014-2015) were collected during the household-based intervention by community lay workers. Using an open/closed typology of urban communities (indicating more or less heterogeneity), this qualitative inquiry presents key features of 12 Zambian communities using a list of four meta-indicators (physical features, social organisation, networks and community narratives). These indicators are then compared with four intervention process indicators in a smaller set of four study communities. The process indicators selected for this analysis indicate response to the intervention (uptake) amongst adults. The BBS qualitative data are used to interpret patterns of similarity and variability in the process indicators across four communities. We found that meta-indicators of local context helped to interpret patterns of similarity and variability emerging across and within the four communities. Features especially significant for influencing heterogeneity in process indicators include proportion of middle-class residents, proximity to neighbouring communities and town centre, the scale of the informal economy, livelihood-linked mobility, presence of HIV stakeholders over time and commitment to community action. Future interdisciplinary analysis is needed to explore if these patterns of difference continue to hold up over the full intervention period and all intervention communities.