Table 2.
Author | Randomization Method (if any) | Methods of Identifying Index | Method of Identifying social network members | Network Member Involvement | Comparison/Control Group |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Broadhead, RS et al. 43 | None | Recruited through street outreach, word of mouth, ads and referrals from community agencies. | Peer educators identified and recruited network members who were previous sexual and/or drug using partners | Indexes and recruited network members became part of the study population | Yes. Comparison group is TOI |
Heckathorn, DD et al. 44 | None | Recruited through street outreach, word of mouth, ads and referrals from community agencies. | Peers educators are motivated to recruit other drug users via a coupon system. | Indexes and recruited network members became part of the study population | Yes. Comparison group is TOI |
Servegev, B et al. 46 | None | Recruited through street outreach, word of mouth, ads and referrals from community agencies | Peers educators are motivated to recruit other drug users via a coupon system. | Indexes and recruited network members became part of the study population | No |
Broadhead, RS et al. 49 | None | There were no ‘indexes’. All participants were recruited through referrals from local health care providers and peers | From the study population, project staff identified HAs and peers and then assigned one HA to a peer. No two participants played both roles for one another. | All participants became part of the study. There was no distinction between index and network members | No |
Latkin, CA et al. 54 | Randomly assigned in a ratio of 2:1 to the intervention or control condition respectively | Recruited through targeted outreach. Recruitment areas in Baltimore City were identified through ethnographic observations, focus groups, and geographical coding of drug- related arrests in Baltimore in the prior 3 years of the study | Index participants recruited network members | Indexes were asked to recruit a maximum of two network members for assessment at baseline and follow-ups. The network members did not receive the intervention | Yes. Control group with no intervention |
Broadhead, RS et al. 58 | None | Indexes were referred to the project by local narcologists or physicians | Index participants recruited a maximum of 3 IDU peers from their community | Indexes and recruited network members became part of the study population | Yes. Standard PDI |
Booth, RE et al. 66 | None | Peer leaders were recruited through street outreach by former IDUs | Index participants recruited a maximum of 3 IDU peers from their injecting network | Received communication from peer leaders, completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Network members did not receive the intervention | Yes. Individual based intervention |
Deering, KN et al. 67 | None | There were no indexes. All participants were recruited into the PDI through referral by an HIV specialist, family care physician, or other health provider, friend, or by self-referral | Project staff allocated the pairing of a health advocate- peer dyad | All participants were part of the study population | No |
Sherman, SG et al. 68 | Random allocation to two arms | Index participants were recruited based on an extensive 18- month formative, ethnographic research stage prior to the RCT | Index participants enrolled at least one of their sex or drug network members in the study within 45 days of screening. | Received communication/conversation from peer leaders, completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Network members did not receive the intervention | Yes. Comparison group is Life- Skill curriculum |
Booth, RE et al. 73 | None | Peer educators and those in the individual intervention were recruited by recovering drug users serving as outreach workers | Index participants recruited a maximum of 3 members of their injecting network. | Received communication from peer educators, completed baseline and follow-up surveys | Yes. Comparison group is Individual Intervention. |
Li, J. et al. 78 | None | Index participants or PHAs were recruited by outreach workers’ judgment, based on their familiarity with participants, about the candidates’ links in the drug-using community | Indexes were asked to refer 2 – 3 drug using peers (injection or non-injection heroin or cocaine/crack users) | Received intervention from PHAs, recruited in the study and completed baseline and follow-up social network egocentric surveys | No |
Smyrnov, P et al. 80 | None | The health educators (HEs) chose active IDUs to serve as indexes, known to be knowledgeable of the local drug- using community | Index participants recruited a maximum of 3 members of their injecting network. | Indexes and recruited network members became part of the study population | Yes. Comparison group is TOI |
Latkin, CA et al. 87 | Yes. Indexes were randomized into a peer education intervention or control condition | Index participants were identified through a community-based recruitment, which included ethnography and outreach in zip codes with high rates of HIV/AIDS cases based on data from the Philadelphia Department of Public Health. Outreach workers disseminated verbal and written information about the study | Peer educators identified and recruited network members from their sexual and or drug sharing networks | Received communication from peer educators, completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Social network members did not receive the intervention | Yes. Control group with no intervention |
Notes: PDI = Peer driven intervention; IDU = Injecting drug users; Peers are same as Indexes; TOI = traditional outreach intervention