Table 2.
Percents and Medians of Select Characteristics of Evidence-Based Interventions (EBIs) and Non-EBIs
| All Interventions | EBIs | Non-EBIs | Non-EBIs by Type
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rigorous |
Positive
|
Other | ||||
| k (%) | k (%) | k (%) | k (%) | k (%) | k (%) | |
| Total (% of total) | 48 | 14 (29%) | 34 (71%) | 10 (21%) | 13 (27%) | 11 (23%) |
|
| ||||||
| Conducted | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Pre-ART (1988 to 1995) | 6 (13%) | 0 (0%) | 6 (18%) | 1 (10%) | 2 (15%) | 3 (27%) |
|
| ||||||
| Early-ART (1996–2003) | 24 (50%) | 11 (79%)a,d | 13 (38%) | 3 (30%)a | 6 (46%)d | 4 (36%) |
|
| ||||||
| Later-ART (2004–2012) | 18 (38%) | 3 (21%)b | 15 (44%) | 6 (60%)b | 5 (38%) | 4 (36%) |
|
| ||||||
| >1 Study Site | 20 (42%) | 10 (71%)b,d | 10 (29%) | 5 (50%)b | 5 (38%)d | 0 (0%) |
|
| ||||||
| No Significant Positive Findings | 21 (44%) | 0 (0%)a | 21 (62%) | 10 (100%)a | 0 (0%) | 11 (100%) |
|
| ||||||
| Sources of Bias | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Small sample size | 16 (33%) | 0 (0%)c | 16 (47%) | 0 (0%) | 8 (62%)c | 8 (73%) |
|
| ||||||
| Retention | 9 (19%) | 0 (0%)c | 9 (26%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (31%)c | 5 (45%) |
|
| ||||||
| Differential attrition | 8 (17%) | 0 (0%)d | 8 (24%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (23%)d | 5 (45%) |
|
| ||||||
| Other limitations (missing data, etc) | 7 (15%) | 0 (0%)c | 7 (21%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (38%)c | 2 (18%) |
|
| ||||||
| Follow-up | 5 (10%) | 0 (0%)c | 5 (15%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (31%)c | 1 (9%) |
|
| ||||||
| Allocation method | 2 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (6%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (18%) |
|
| ||||||
| Intent-to-Treat analysis | 2 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (6%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (18%) |
|
| ||||||
| Negative intervention effect | 2 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (6%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (18%) |
|
| ||||||
| Target Groupsα | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Clinic patients | 17 (35%) | 7 (50%)b | 10 (29%) | 3 (30%)b | 5 (38%) | 2 (18%) |
|
| ||||||
| MSM | 13 (27%) | 2 (14%) | 11 (32%) | 3 (30%) | 2 (15%) | 6 (55%) |
|
| ||||||
| Engaged in HIV transmission risk† | 11 (23%) | 3 (21%) | 8 (24%) | 2 (20%) | 4 (31%) | 2 (18%) |
|
| ||||||
| Substance use | 10 (21%) | 1 (7%)b,d | 9 (26%) | 4 (40%)b | 4 (31%)d | 1 (9%) |
|
| ||||||
| Female | 5 (10%) | 1 (7%) | 4 (12%) | 1 (10%) | 2 (15%) | 1 (9%) |
|
| ||||||
| African American | 4 (8%) | 1 (7%) | 3 (9%) | 1 (10%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (18%) |
|
| ||||||
| Depressed or childhood abuse | 4 (8%) | 1 (7%) | 3 (9%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (8%) | 2 (18%) |
|
| ||||||
| Younger age (13 to 25 years) | 3 (6%) | 2 (14%) | 1 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (8%) | 0 (0%) |
|
| ||||||
| Older age group (>45 years) | 3 (6%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (9%) | 1 (10%) | 1 (8%) | 1 (9%) |
|
| ||||||
| Newly diagnosed | 3 (6%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (9%) | 1 (10%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (18%) |
|
| ||||||
| Substance using MSM | 2 (4%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (9%) | 1 (10%) | 1 (8%) | 1 (9%) |
|
| ||||||
| Male prison inmate | 1 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (8%) | 0 (0%) |
|
| ||||||
| Homeless | 1 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3%) | 1 (10%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
|
| ||||||
| Rural residents | 1 (2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (8%) | 0 (0%) |
|
| ||||||
| Sample Characteristics (median)α | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Black | 50% | 48% | 54% | 63% | 51% | 37% |
|
| ||||||
| Latino | 15% | 17% | 13% | 12% | 14% | 13% |
|
| ||||||
| White | 23% | 22% | 32% | 9% | 23% | 49% |
|
| ||||||
| Male | 72% | 71% | 78% | 70% | 70% | 100% |
|
| ||||||
| Female | 27% | 28% | 27% | 29% | 37% | 36% |
|
| ||||||
| Average age (years) | 42 | 41 | 42 | 41 | 39 | |
|
| ||||||
| Comparison group | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Standard of care or Waitlist | 20 (42%) | 6 (43%)b | 14 (41%) | 2 (20%)b | 7 (54%) | 5 (45%) |
|
| ||||||
| Non-HIV Attention controlϕ | 12 (25%) | 6 (43%)b,d | 6 (18%) | 1 (10%)b | 2 (15%)d | 3 (27%) |
|
| ||||||
| HIV Demand controlȺ | 16 (33%) | 2 (14%)a | 14 (41%) | 7 (70%)a | 4 (31%) | 3 (27%) |
|
| ||||||
| Power analysis reported | 20 (42%) | 8 (57%) | 12 (35%) | 5 (50%) | 5 (38%) | 2 (18%) |
|
| ||||||
| Used ACASI for Data Collection | 20 (42%) | 9 (64%)d | 11 (32%) | 6 (60%) | 3 (23%)d | 2 (18%) |
|
| ||||||
| Theory reported | 42 (88%) | 14 (100%)d | 28 (82%) | 9 (90%) | 10 (77%)d | 9 (82%) |
|
| ||||||
| Intervention Settingα | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Health Careβ | 24 (50%) | 10 (71%)b,d | 14 (41%) | 5 (50%)b | 5 (38%)d | 4 (36%) |
|
| ||||||
| Community based establishment≠ | 11 (23%) | 5 (36%) | 6 (18%) | 2 (20%) | 1 (8%) | 3 (27%) |
|
| ||||||
| Public area^ | 4 (8%) | 2 (14%) | 2 (6%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (15) | 0 (0%) |
|
| ||||||
| Commerical+ | 2 (4%) | 1 (7%) | 1 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (9%) |
|
| ||||||
| Intervention Level | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Individual | 21 (44%) | 7 (50%)b | 14 (41%) | 3 (30%)b | 7 (54%) | 4 (36%) |
|
| ||||||
| Group | 26 (54%) | 6 (43%)b | 20 (59%) | 7 (70%)b | 6 (46%) | 7 (64%) |
|
| ||||||
| Couple | 1 (2%) | 1 (7%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
|
| ||||||
| Delivererᶠ| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Professional± | 28 (58%) | 7 (50%)d | 21 (62%) | 4 (40%) | 10 (77%)d | 8 (73%) |
|
| ||||||
| Counselor or health educator | 19 (40%) | 4 (29%)d | 15 (44%) | 3 (30%) | 8 (62%)d | 6 (55%) |
|
| ||||||
| Healthcare worker | 9 (19%) | 3 (21%) | 6 (18%) | 1 (10%) | 3 (23%) | 2 (18%) |
|
| ||||||
| Peer | 13 (27%) | 4 (29%) | 9 (26%) | 3 (30%) | 3 (23%) | 3 (27%) |
|
| ||||||
| Computer-based | 2 (4%) | 1 (7%) | 1 (3%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (8%) | 0 (0%) |
|
| ||||||
| Intervention componentsα | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Skills building | 32 (67%) | 9 (64%) | 23 (68%) | 6 (60%) | 8 (62%) | 9 (82%) |
|
| ||||||
| HIV risk reduction÷ 4 | 31 (65%) | 12 (86%)a,d | 19 (56%) | 4 (40%)a | 8 (62%)d | 7 (64%) |
|
| ||||||
| Motivation | 29 (60%) | 11 (79%)b,d | 18 (53%) | 5 (50%)b | 6 (46%)d | 7 (64%) |
|
| ||||||
| Self-efficacy | 27 (56%) | 8 (57%) | 19 (56%) | 6 (60%) | 7 (54%) | 6 (55%) |
|
| ||||||
| Serostatus disclosure | 23 (48%) | 9 (64%)d | 14 (41%) | 5 (50%) | 4 (31%)d | 5 (45%) |
|
| ||||||
| Social support | 21 (44%) | 8 (57%) | 13 (38%) | 4 (40%) | 5 (38%) | 4 (36%) |
|
| ||||||
| Personalized risk reduction plan | 21 (44%) | 8 (57%) | 13 (38%) | 4 (40%) | 6 (46%) | 3 (27%) |
|
| ||||||
| Misperception about HIV | 16 (33%) | 8 (57%)b,c | 8 (24%) | 3 (30%)b | 2 (15%)c | 3 (27%) |
|
| ||||||
| Personal responsibility | 16 (33%) | 5 (36%) | 11 (32%) | 2 (20%) | 6 (46%) | 3 (27%) |
|
| ||||||
| Depression and anxiety | 15 (31%) | 7 (50%)b,d | 8 (24%) | 3 (30%)b | 1 (8%)d | 4 (36%) |
|
| ||||||
| Risk Screening1 | 12 (25%) | 5 (36%)b | 7 (21%) | 1 (10%)b | 5 (38%) | 1 (9%) |
|
| ||||||
| Medication adherence | 10 (21%) | 5 (36%)b | 5 (15%) | 1 (10%)b | 3 (23%) | 1 (9%) |
|
| ||||||
| Normative influence€ | 9 (19%) | 4 (29%)d | 5 (15%) | 2 (20%) | 0 (0%)d | 3 (27%) |
|
| ||||||
| Intimate partner violence | 4 (8%) | 1 (7%) | 3 (9%) | 1 (10%) | 2 (15%) | 0 (0%) |
|
| ||||||
| Intervention Intensity | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 1–2 sessions | 6 (13%) | 2 (14%) | 4 (12%) | 1 (10%) | 2 (15%) | 1 (9%) |
|
| ||||||
| 3–10 sessions | 30 (63%) | 8 (57%)b | 22 (65%) | 8 (80%)b | 6 (46%) | 8 (73%) |
|
| ||||||
| >10 sessions | 12 (25%) | 4 (29%) | 8 (24%) | 1 (10%) | 5 (38%) | 2 (18%) |
|
| ||||||
| Intervention Time Span | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| 1–3 months | 33 (69%) | 7 (50%)a | 26 (76%) | 9 (90%)a | 8 (62%) | 9 (82%) |
|
| ||||||
| > 3 months | 15 (31%) | 7 (50%) | 8 (24%) | 1 (10%) | 5 (38%) | 2 (18%) |
k = the number of interventions
EBI = evidence-based interventions that show at least one significant positive intervention effect and have low risk of bias in study design, implementation and analysis
Rigorous Non-EBI = interventions show no significant positive intervention effects but have low risk of bias in study design, implementation and analysis
Positive non-EBI = interventions show at least one significant positive intervention effect but have high risk of bias in study design, implementation and analysis
Other non-EBI = interventions show no significant positive intervention effect and have high risk of bias in study design, implementation and analysis
Significant Fisher’s Exact test between EBIs and Rigorous non-EBIs (p<0.05)
The difference between EBIs and Rigorous non-EBIs, p value approached 0.10 or the percentage differences were 20% or more
Significant Fisher’s Exact test between EBIs and Positive non-EBIs (p<0.05)
The difference between EBIs and Positive non-EBIs, p value approached 0.10 or the percentage differences were 20% or more
Not mutually exclusive
Engaged in unprotected sex with HIV-negative or serostatus unknown sex partners
Defined as a study group that receives a non-HIV intervention (e.g. general health promotion) that matched the length and doses of HIV intervention
Defined as a study group in which participants are aware of the goals of the intervention (e.g. to reduce sexual or drug use risk)
Includes HIV outpatient clinics, community health centers, hospitals, and methadone treatment clinics
Includes community-based organization, HIV/AIDS service organizations, community storefront, and drop-in center
Includes general public area (e.g., park), street location, and community gathering place
Includes adult book/video store, bar, and health club
Includes counselor, health educator and health care provider
Discussing methods to prevent HIV transmission such as abstinence, condom use, not sharing used needles
Direct or explicit attempts to change peer norms or participants’ perceptions of norms
Some studies did not report the information