Modifiers of the Intervention Effect
Depression
DISORDERS
Psychosocial characteristics relevant to the analyses of effect modification are summarised in Table 
Forest plot of primary outcome across subgroups of psychosocial characteristics measured prior to randomisation
Intervention effect, stratified by potential effect modifiersAbbreviations: EPDS: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale; K-10: Kessler-10 scale; AUDIT-C: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption.However, there was some evidence that the intervention was more effective in particular groups of women, although not all differences were statistically significant (Fig. 
Proportion of women allocated to the intervention and control achieving the primary trial outcome (engagement in HIV care and viral suppression at 12 months postpartum) across subgroups of psychosocial characteristics measured prior to randomisationIn addition, the intervention effect differed significantly according to two characteristics: pregnancy intention and alcohol use. Among women reporting that their pregnancy was unintended, 76% of women in the intervention arm achieved the trial outcome, versus 49% of those in the control (RD: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.38). In comparison, 79% and 73% of those reporting that their pregnancy was intended and allocated to the intervention and control achieved the trial outcome, respectively (RD: 0.06; 95% CI: -0.09, 0.21; p-value for interaction: 0.025). Finally, women who reported risky drinking in the 12 months prior to pregnancy recognition were significantly less likely to benefit from the intervention. In this group of women, 64% of those in the intervention arm and 60% of those in the control achieved the trial outcome (RD: 0.04; 95% CI: -0.15, 0.23), compared to 81% and 55% among those not reporting risky drinking, respectively (RD: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.36; p-value for interaction: 0.040).