Skip to main content
. 2023 Oct 24;2023(10):CD014722. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014722.pub2

Bell 2008.

Study characteristics
Methods Study design: cluster‐RCT
Duration of study: the study was conducted between May 2003 and April 2006.
Country: South Africa
Income classification: lower‐middle‐income country in 2003, upper‐middle from 2004 to 2006
Geographical scope: 20 primary schools located within the 4 community areas (Molweni, KwaNyusawa, KwaNgcolosi and Qadi) of KwaDedangendlale, which is 40 km outside of Durban on the eastern seaboard of South Africa
Healthcare setting: community groups
Participants 1. Age: 9‐13 years for children and caregivers aged 18 or above
2. Gender: both
3. Socioeconomic background: not specified
4. Educational background: 19% of caregivers reported having no formal education, 46% had a level of education between grades 1‐5, and 35% reported having a formal education between grades.
Inclusion criteria:
a. children between the ages of 9‐13 years old;
b. being reared by an adult caregiver age > 18 years that fulfils parenting responsibilities;
c. enrolled in school;
d. indicated agreement to participate in the study via caregiver consent and child assent.
Exclusion criteria:
not specified
Note: considerations on baseline scores not applicable for this study
Stated purpose: to test the effectiveness of the CHAMP amongst black South Africans in KwaZulu‐Natal, South Africa
Interventions Name: CHAMPSA
Title/name of PW and number: community caregivers (number not specified)
1. Selection: selected from the community (schools)
2. Educational background: low literacy levels of caregivers (just under 50% had fifth‐grade education)
3. Training: training entailed attending detailed workshops covering the purpose and content of each session and participatory experiential methods, including facilitation skills. Prior to delivery of the intervention, facilitators rehearsed the various sessions. Further, the previous week’s activities were reviewed through observing and evaluating each facilitator. These weekly meetings also included debriefing sessions and workshops on stress management, dealing with grief and bereavement, and the importance of boundaries and containment when working as facilitators.
4. Supervision: weekly meetings for monitoring/managing the progress of the intervention
5. Incentives/remuneration: not specified
Prevention type: universal – the intervention was defined as universal: “due to the universal prevention intervention being conducted in a typical randomized control design, the internal validity of our findings are considered strong, as the major difference in variables impinging on the experimental and control subjects was CHAMPSA”.
Intervention details: the final adapted CHAMPSA manualized programme [AmaQhawe (Champions) programme] comprises 10 90‐minute sessions delivered over 10 weekends. The sessions were designed to increase HIV knowledge and decrease stigma surrounding HIV infections; increase authoritative parenting, caregiver decision‐making and caregiver monitoring of children; increase family frequency and comfort discussing hard‐to‐discuss subjects (e.g. sexuality and risky behaviours); increase connectedness to caregiver social networks; decrease neighbourhood disorganization, and increase social control and cohesion. The manual introduces these skills through dramatic depiction in a cartoon‐based storyline.
Control: usual care (HIV prevention messages)
Outcomes Participants’outcomes of interest for this review
  1. Distress/PTSD symptoms – General Health Questionnaire (GHQ‐12)


Carers’outcomes of interest for this review
Nil
Economic outcomes
Nil
Time points: baseline, post‐intervention (< 1 month)
Notes Source of funding: the research project was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) grant #2RO1 MH‐01‐004 (principal investigator: Bell, Carl C. $2,179,890). The 2007 Collaborative HIV Adolescent Mental Health Program South Africa (CHAMPSA) service funding comes from a donation from a private nonpharmaceutical source and is earmarked for HIV prevention service delivery ($150,000).
Notes on validation of instruments (screening and outcomes): the GHQ is a widely established measure that has been validated across contexts.
Additional information: none
Handling the data: no dataset available
Prospective trial registration number: not reported