Table 2.

Discussion of contextual factors and generalisability in eight studies of HIV prevention

	Empirical examination of:
Outcome evaluation	Acceptability	Feasible delivery	Coverage	Local needs	Discussion of generalisability
Dilley et al (2002)⁸	No	No	No	No	Cost of intervention regarded as potential barrier to transfer
Elford et al (2001)⁹	Educators thought intervention period insufficient to develop rapport	Recruitment and retention of educators difficult due to time, interest, and confidence problems. Time needed for planning was more than expected	Educators found it difficult to make contact (and discuss sex) with participants. Possibly related to social norms in UK, big city, or gym context	No	Intervention informed by US work and authors question its transfer to UK because of different norms
Flowers et al (2002)¹²	Discussing sex in community sites went against local norms	Recruitment of popular peers difficult; educators found it difficult to discuss sex	No	No	Intervention informed by US work and authors question its transfer to UK because of different norms and needs
Gold and Rosenthal (1998)¹⁴	No	No	No	No	No
Imrie et al (2001)¹⁵	No	No	No	No	No
Picciano et al (2001)¹⁶	No	More feasible to address some issues with minority ethnic than white men	More drop-outs among young and less educated men	No	Argues intervention is generalisable to other sites and populations because it is client centred
Rosser et al (2002)¹⁷	No	No	No	No	Suggests intervention may be more effective in sites with higher rates of risk behaviour
Shepherd et al (1997)¹⁸	No	Prior links between educators and health promoters enabled recruitment. Educators reluctant to address factors other than knowledge because of norms about what constitutes education	No	Reported qualitative findings on sexual health needs from baseline interviews	Suggests prior rapport between health promoters and potential educators essential to recruitment. Also that educators need longer involvement to address factors other than knowledge