Table 2.

Studies That Reported Condom Use Not Included In Meta-Analysis

Intervention	Scale used to measure condom use	Finding
At wood et al. 2012	Use/non-use score	Significant effect of increased consistency of condom use in the last three months at 9-month follow-up period for sexually active participants at baseline and controlling for baseline condom use (B 9mth = 0.032, p < 0.05).
Burnett et al. 2011	14-item scale	Statistically significant difference in positive direction between the intervention and control group of the study (F = 32.39, p < 0.001).
Brieger et al. 2001	Measured modern contraceptive use including condom use, pills and foaming tablets.	Found significantly increased reported modern contraceptive use in the intervention group compared to the control (Fisher’s exact p = 0.004).
Denison et al. 2012	Use/non-use score	No evidence of difference in reported condom between the intervention and control group at follow up (aOR = 0.93, 95 % CI = 0.57–1.53)
Esere 2008	A 4-point Likert At-Risk Sexual Behaviour Scale which include ‘do not use condoms while having sex’ as a component of the scale.	Significant difference between the intervention and control group (F = 95.93, p < 0.05).
James et al. 2005	Use/non-use score	The intervention (reading Laduma once) was found to have no significant effect on Consistent condom use six weeks post intervention.
James et al. 2006	Consistent use of condom in the preceding six months was measured by assessing whether condom was used all the time, sometimes or not at all.	Full implementation group used condom more at last sex (B = −0.80, SE = 0.40, Wald (1, 57) = 4.16, p < 0.05, OR = 0.45). However, no effect was found for partial implementation group compared with the full implementation (B = −0.21, SE = 0.41, Wald (1,157) = 0.27, p = 0.60, OR = 0.81)
Karnell et al. 2006	Measured frequency of condom use on a scale of 1 (never) to 6 (always).	Participants in the intervention group have significantly higher scores than those in the control group (p < 0.05).
Mba et al. 2007	Practised or intended to practised STI prevention technique (specifically condom use).	All sexual active participants in the intervention group practised or intended to practise STI prevention technique at six-week follow up compared to 18 participants at baseline. However, in the control group no change before and after the intervention.
Rijsdijk et al. 2011	Condom use measured with four-item condom use behaviour (e.g., How often have you obtained a condom in the past 6 months” and “in the past 6 months, did you use a condom when having sex” α = 0.84)	No significant effects of the intervention was found in ‘past performance behaviour’ including condom use (F = 0.46).
Tibbits et al. 2011	Use/non-use score	Significant effect in the positive direction (β = −0.16, SE = 0.08, p < 0.05) for risk at last sex (including condom use with partner at last sex) among virgins at baseline. However, non-significant effect was found for all participants (virgins and non-virgins at baseline). Similarly, non-significant effect was found for condom less sex refusal outcome for all participants including virgins at baseline. Similarly, no difference observed in proportion of participants that reported sexual intercourse in consistent condom use at wave 4 and wave 5 of the study.