Table 2.

Study outcomes

First author (year)	Intervention condition	Comparison condition	Sexual health outcomes	Major findings	Major limitations	Total QA scorea
[26]	Mixed intervention consisting of a STI/HIV education program and a group micro- lending model that also includes business skills training and promotion of a savings culture	Baseline (peer- mediated STI/HIV education only)	O.1) Number of sexual partners (total, casual, regular) O.2) Condom use with all, casual, and regular sexual partners O.3) Exit from sex work	O.1) Decreased number of total partners and regular sex partners (P< 0.001 for both). No difference in the mean number of casual partners O.2) Increased condom use with regular partners (P = 0.031) O.3) 45.4 % reported exit from sex work	L.1) Non-experimental study with no control group L.2) Self-selection bias into MF initiative L.3) Mean age of women was 41 years, older than peak age of initial HIV infection in Kenya, which may affect motivation to exit sex work. Limited external validity	5
[27]	Mixed intervention consisting of 6 training sessions that covered HIV prevention and jewelry making and marketing skills. 50 % of final proceeds from sales given to jeweler	Baseline data	O.1) Median number of sexual partners (total, regular, and casual) per month O.2) Condom use with regular partners, casual partners, and clients O.3) Median number of clients per month	O.1) Decreased total number of sexual contacts per month in IG (10.0 vs. 3.0, p = 0.01) O.2) Increased condom use with clients in IG (53.0 % vs. 75.0 %, p = 0.03) O.3) Decreased median number of monthly clients in IG (9.0 vs. 3.0, p = 0.025)	L.1) Non-experimental study with no control group L.2) Small sample size of pilot study was used to assess the feasibility L.3) Short-term follow up (3 months) limits external validity	5
[21]	Mixed intervention consisting of 100 h of bag tailoring trainings plus 8 h of HIV prevention trainings. Participants were also paid 100 Rs for each bag sold.	8 h of HIV prevention trainings only	O.1) Mean number of sex partners (total and clients) O.2) Condom use at last sex exchange O.3) Regular use of condoms with clients	O.1) Decreased number of sex partners at 6 months follow- up (total and clients) O.2) No difference in condom use at last exchange O.3) No difference in regular condom use with clients	L.1) Short-term follow up (3 months) limits external validity	7
[22]	Intervention 1: combined MF program and 10 training sessions involving HIV education, gender roles, and community mobilization Intervention 2: MF program only	Matched villages with no intervention	O.1) Condom use at last sex with all non-spousal partners O.2) Combined MF vs. control: economic well- being, empowerment, HIV-related risk behavior O.3) MF only vs. control: economic well being, empowerment, HIV-related risk behavior O.4) Combined MF vs. MF only: economic well being, empowerment, HIV-related risk behavior	O.1) No differences condom use between groups O.2) Pattern of improved economic well-being, empowerment, and HIV- related risk behavior (excluding condom use) O.3) Pattern of improved economic well-being (aRRs 1.22–3.38, CI excluding 1 for most indicators). Inconsistent findings for empowerment and HIV-related variables O.4) Similar improvements in economic well-being. Combined MF group showed greater effects on empowerment and HIV- related variables	L.1) Self-selection bias into intervention groups	7
[23]	Mixed intervention consisting of a group-based MF program and training sessions focused on HIV education, gender roles, and community mobilization	Women ages 14–35 from pair matched villages with no intervention	O.1) More than one sexual partner in past 12 months O.2) Unprotected sex during last intercourse with non-spousal partner in past 12 months O.3) Communication with household members about sex matters in past 12 months	O.1) No differences in having more than one sexual partner in past 12 months between IG and CG O.2) IG less likely to have unprotected sex with non- spousal partner (aRR = 0.76, 95 % CI 0.60–0.96) O.3) IG had higher levels of household HIV-related communication (aRR = 1.46, 96 % CI 1.01–2.12)	L.1) Self-selection bias into intervention group L.2) Higher level of non- response from comparison group at follow-up L.3) Low numbers of new HIV infections during intervention period prevented examination of differences in HIV incidence	7
[25]	Mixed intervention consisting of group-based MF programs and 1 year educational trainings on basic literacy, business skills, and health education; IG defined as participation in program for more than 12 months	Women enrolled in the MF program for less than 12 months	O.1) More than one sexual partners in previous 12 months O.2) Ever used a condom in previous 12 months O.3) Condom use with unfaithful partner	O.1) Numbers too small to calculate statistics, O.2) No differences found in condom use in previous 12 months between IG and CG, O.3) Trend towards increased condom use with unfaithful partner (OR = 3.95, 95 % CI 0.93–16.85)	L.1) Observational study with no experimental group, limited assessment of directionality of association L.2) Self-selection bias, as study population only included women who were current MF clients and thus more inclined to participate in MF activities	5
[28]	Mixed intervention consisting of HIV and gender education, business training and mentorship (including workshops on soap making, tie-dye, and candle making), microcredit loans	Baseline data	Condom use with primary partner	No differences in condom use with primary partner between intervention and baseline data	L.1) Small sample size of pilot study was used to inform research design and study interventions with no intention to assess quantitative outcomes for evaluation L.2) Non-experimental study with no control group L.3) Use of modified group- lending model that paid loans in lump sum rather than installments after repayment L.4) Threats to personal safety and security of goods may have influenced business management and perceived benefits of MF	4

MF microfinance, QA quality assessment, IG intervention group, CG comparison group, aRR adjusted risk ratio

^aQA score out of 8: (1) clear definition of target population, (2) representativeness of probability sampling, (3) sample characteristics matching the overall population, (4) adequate response rate, (5) standardized data collection methods, (6) reliability of survey measures/instruments, (7) validity of survey measures/instruments, (8) appropriate statistical methods (adapted from AHRQ [13])