R1.5: introduction & throughout could mention lower ART uptake among heterosexual men

[jessexknight]

The third paragraph of the Introduction mentions possible inequalities in uptake of HIV testing and ART as an explanation for the lower-than-expected impact of UTT, and mentions a number of sub-populations that might be disadvantaged. But the authors fail to mention heterosexual men. There is much evidence of heterosexual men being at a disadvantage (in terms of HIV testing and ART uptake) and they also contribute more to transmission than heterosexual women, so why are they not mentioned here? Similarly in the second and third paragraphs of the discussion the authors criticize modelling studies that don't consider key population dynamics, but they don't mention the challenges around engaging heterosexual men (and the problem that many models don't consider differences between men and women in ART coverage). The poor uptake of HIV testing and ART in heterosexual men is really the Achilles heel in the 'treatment as prevention' strategy in Africa, yet this issue is frequently ignored in the literature. I feel the authors could have drawn more attention to this issue throughout the paper, rather than focusing narrowly on the traditionally defined key populations.