Table 3.
Proportion of men testing for HIV post-intervention in intervention and control arms.
| Study reference | Outcome measurement | Proportion HIV-testing intervention (%, n) (A) | Proportion HIV-testing control (%, n) (B) | Difference (%) (A − B) | RR (unless otherwise reported) (95% CI) | Adjusted RR (unless otherwise reported) (95% CI) |
| Invitations for ANC-based HTC provided through pregnant women | ||||||
| Mohlala et al., 2011 | Num: # of men HIV-tested in study period Denom: # invited to ANC through pregnant partners | 32.2 (161/500) | 11.4 (57/500) | 20.8 | 2.82 (2.14–3.72) | NR |
| Byamugisha et al., 2011 | Num: # of men HIV-tested in study period Denom: # of men invited through pregnant partners | 15.5 (82/530) | 12.8 (68/530) | 2.7 | 1.21 (0.90–1.62)d | OR: 1.6 (0.4, 6.8)a |
| Orne-Gliemann et al., 2013 | Num: # of men HIV-tested in study period Denom: # pregnant women recruited | Logbook only: 14.6 (35/239) Combined: 24.7 (59/239) | Logbook only: 5.7 (14/245) Combined: 14.3 (35/245) | 8.9 10.4 | Logbook only: 2.56 (1.42–4.64)d Combined: 1.73 (1.18–2.52)d | Combined OR: 2.38 (1.41–4.02)b |
| Invitations for community-based HTC provided through pregnant women | ||||||
| Ditekemena et al., 2011 | Num: # of men HIV-tested in study period Denom: # of men invited to HTC site | Church: 20.9 (189/906) Bar: 26.5 (236/891) | 18.3 (166/909) | Church: 2.6 Bar: 8.2 | Church: 1.14 (0.95–1.38)d Bar: 1.45 (1.22–2.03)d | OR Church: 1.10 (0.87–1.39)c OR Bar: 1.50(1.19–1.89)c |
| Invitations for facility-based HTC through notification that partner is newly diagnosed HIV-positive | ||||||
| Brown et al., 2011o | Num: # of male partners tested Denom: # of male partners identified by index patient | Provider: 44.2 (23/52) Contract: 46 (23/50) | Passive: 14.6 (7/48) | Provider: 29.6 Contract: 31.4 | Provider: 3.03 (1.43–6.42)d Contract: 3.15 (1.49–6.66)d | NR |
| Num: # of male partners tested Denom: # of locatable male partners identified by index patient | Provider: 47.9 (23/48) Contract: 48.9 (23/47) | Passive: 16.0 (7/45) | Provider: 31.9 Contract: 32.9 | Provider: 3.08 (1.47–6.47)d Contract: 3.15 (1.50–6.60) | NR | |
| Health facility-based strategies | ||||||
| Simbayi et al., 2004 | Num: # of individuals reporting testing 1 month postcounselling Denom: # of individuals in study arm | 37.7 (43/114) | 21.9 (25/114) | 15.8 | 1.72 (1.13–2.62)d | OR: 2.4e |
| Num: # of individuals reporting testing 1 month before 3 months follow-up Denom: # of individuals in study arm | 30.7 (35/114) | 25.4 (29/114) | 5.3 | 1.21 (0.79–1.83)d | OR: 1.2e | |
| Pope et al., 2008 | Num: # of men HIV-tested in study period Denom: # of male patients | 18.6 (36/194) | 8.4 (20/238) | 10.2 | OR: 3.7g OR: 2.40 (1.05–5.50)f | NR |
| Wanyenze et al., 2011p | Num: # of male patients tested and receiving results Denom: # of male patients offered PITC/voucher | 100 (109/109) | 64.6 (62/96) | 35.4 | 1.55 (1.34–1.80)d | NR |
| Community-based strategies | ||||||
| Corbett et al., 2006h | Num: # of males accepting on-site VCT/voucher for off-site VCT in study period Denom: # of male employees | 54.8 (1634/2981) | 13.7 (340/2474) | 41.1 | 2.7 (1.8–3.9)i 3.99d | 2.8 (1.8–3.8)j |
| Burnett et al., 2011 | Num: # of males reporting ever-testing postintervention Denom: # of males with complete data postintervention | 48.4 (15/31) | 6.5 (2/31) | 41.9 | 7.50 (1.87–30.08)d | OR: 10.96 (4.59–26.15)k |
| Sweat et al., 2011 (Tanzania) | Num: # of men testing at least once in study period Denom: 50% of target populationl | 43.7 (1365/3125) | 9.1 (306/3367) | 34.6 | 4.81d | NR |
| Sweat et al., 2011 (Zimbabwe) | Num: # of men testing at least once in study period Denom: 50% of target populationl | 52.6 (2816/5350) | 5.3 (323/6075) | 47.3 | 9.90d | NR |
| Lugada et al., 2010 | Num: # of male HH members tested in study period Denom: # of male HH members aged ≥15 years | 45.1 (427/947) | 9.1 (44/484) | 36 | 4.96 (3.71–6.63)d | 10.41 (7.89–13.73)m |
| Doherty et al., 2013 | Num: # of men testing during study period Denom: # of men surveyed in post-intervention household survey | 47.3 (229/484) | 32.7 (189/578) | 14.6 | PR: 1.52 (1.19–1.95) | NR |
| Fylkesnes et al., 2013 | Num: # of men testing in year prior to the follow-up survey Denom: # of men surveyed baseline and follow-up | 76.1(N = 255) | 42.2 (N = 261) | 33.9 | 1.8 (1.4–2.3) | NR |
| Low et al., 2013n | Num: # of men reporting ever testing Denom: # of men surveyed in post intervention household survey | 92.7 (580/626) | 53.6 (351/655) | 39.1 | 1.73d | NR |
ANC, antenatal care; CI, confidence interval; HH, household; HTC, HIV testing and counselling; NR, not reported; OR, odds ratio; PR, prevalence ratio; RR, risk ratio.
aPer-protocol analysis: intervention 95.3% (82/86) and control 90.7% (68/75); OR adjusted for male partner's age, occupation and education level.
bOR based on combined indicator of logbook and women's self-report of men's HTC. Adjusted for age, female remunerated activity, partner alcohol consumption, HIV status, whether women reports partner ever tested, ever discussed condom with partner, women suggested HIV-testing to partner.
cAdjusted for women's age, marital status, religion and cohabitation.
dRR calculated using Epi-Info.
eOR for individuals retained at follow-up (HTC at 1 month: 47 versus 28%; HTC before 3-month follow-up: 38 versus 33%). Adjusted for age, race, sex, years of education and baseline testing rates.
fOR calculated using STATA.
gReported OR for men and women.
hData for males provided through personal communication (Corbett, 2013).
iRR for unadjusted mean uptake of voucher versus on-site VCT by men and women.
jRatio of observed/expected proportions, adjusted for age, sex, marital status, education, household contact with TB patient, self-rated health and strata (high–low absenteeism). Adjusted RR for use of voucher versus on-site VCT by men and women 12.5 (8.2–16.8).
kData for males provided through personal communication, 2014. OR of change in ever had HIV-test from pre to postintervention, excluding those who tested preintervention.
lCalculated by assuming that 50% of the target population was male.
mAdjusted for age and sex.
nData available in paper; however, data for men aged at least 15 years provided through personal communication (Low, 2014).
oData for men provided through personal communication; (Brown 2013).
pData for men provided through personal communication; (Wanyenze 2012).