Quantitative Methods Used to Evaluate Impact of Combination HIV Prevention Intervention: A Methodological Systematic Review

被引：0

作者：

Andrainolo Ravalihasy

Pearl Anne Ante-Testard

Lidia Kardas-Sloma

Yazdan Yazdanpanah

Manuela De Allegri

Valéry Ridde

机构：

[1] Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) et Université Paris Cité,Centre Population et Développement (Ceped)

[2] Inserm ERL 1244,Francis I. Proctor Foundation

[3] French Collaborative Institute On Migrations,Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine

[4] CNRS,undefined

[5] UMR 1137,undefined

[6] Inserm,undefined

[7] Université Paris Cité,undefined

[8] IAME,undefined

[9] MESuRS and Unité PACRI,undefined

[10] Institut Pasteur,undefined

[11] Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers,undefined

[12] University of California,undefined

[13] San Francisco,undefined

[14] AP-HP,undefined

[15] Hôpital Bichat,undefined

[16] Service,undefined

[17] University of Heidelberg,undefined

来源：

AIDS and Behavior | 2023年 / 27卷

关键词：

Combination HIV prevention intervention; Impact evaluation; Decision-making; Evidence-based;

D O I：

暂无

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Combination HIV prevention aims to provide the right mix of biomedical, behavioral and structural interventions, and is considered the best approach to curb the HIV pandemic. The impact evaluation of combined HIV prevention intervention (CHPI) provides critical information for decision making. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to map the designs and methods used in these studies. We searched original articles indexed in Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed. Fifty-eight studies assessing the impact of CHPI on HIV transmission were included. Most of the studies took place in Asia or sub-Saharan Africa and were published from 2000 onward. We identified 36 (62.1%) quasi-experimental studies (posttest, pretest–posttest and nonequivalent group designs) and 22 (37.9%) experimental studies (randomized designs). The findings suggest that diverse methods are already rooted in CHPI impact evaluation practices as recommended but should be better reported. CHPI impact evaluation would benefit from more comprehensive approaches.

引用

页码：2763 / 2773

页数：10

共 472 条

[1]

Padian NS(2008)Biomedical interventions to prevent HIV infection: evidence, challenges, and way forward Lancet 372 585-599

[2]

Buvé A(2017)HIV/STI prevention interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis Open Med 12 450-467

[3]

Balkus J(2018)Evaluations of structural interventions for HIV prevention: a review of approaches and methods AIDS Behav 22 1253-1264

[4]

Serwadda D(2011)Combination HIV prevention: significance, challenges, and opportunities Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 8 62-72

[5]

Cates W(2008)Coming to terms with complexity: a call to action for HIV prevention Lancet 372 845-859

[6]

Globerman J(2000)Structural factors in HIV prevention: concepts, examples, and implications for research AIDS 14 S3-S309

[7]

Mitra S(2011)Addressing social drivers of HIV/AIDS for the long-term response: conceptual and methodological considerations Glob Public Health 6 S293-214

[8]

Gogolishvili D(2010)The bottom-up approach to integrative validity: a new perspective for program evaluation Eval Program Plann 33 205-21

[9]

Rueda S(2018)Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials Soc Sci Med 210 2-291

[10]

Schoffel L(2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews Syst Rev 10 89-9

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 →