Table 2.
Summary of results for studies assessing condom use before and after testing for HIV
| Study | Condom outcome measure | Sample size | Baseline value of outcome | Absolute change after testing | Follow-up time (months) | p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consistent condom use | ||||||
| Gray et al19 | Consistent use in last year | 2474 (circumcised) | 32.6% | 3.1% decrease | 24 | NR |
| 2522 (uncircumcised) | 33.7% | 3.0% decrease | ||||
| Ruzagira et al21 | Always used in last year | 495 | 16.4% | 10.6% decrease | 24 | NR |
| Wawer et al22 | Consistent use in last year | 648 (with circumcised partners) | 0.3% | 0.8% increase | 24 | NR |
| 597 (with uncircumcised partners) | 0.8% | 0.2% decrease | ||||
| Kiene et al20 | 100% use with risky partner* in last 3 months | 131 (risky participants) | NR | 7.6% increase | 3 | NR |
| Ramjee et al28 | 100% use in last week | 958 | 49.2% | 0.1% decrease | 12 | NR |
| Matambo et al32 | No unprotected sex in last 3 months | 388 | 17.5% | 0.2% decrease | 3 | 0.84 |
| No condom use | ||||||
| Gray et al19 | Not used in last year | 2474 (circumcised) | 39.5% | 3.1% decrease | 24 | NR |
| 2522 (uncircumcised) | 37.3% | 1.2% decrease | ||||
| Ruzagira et al21 | Not used in last year | 495 | 40.0% | 40.0% decrease | 24 | NR |
| Wawer et al22 | Not used in last year | 648 (with circumcised partners) | 85.5% | 1.0% decrease | 24 | NR |
| 597 (with uncircumcised partners) | 81.2% | 2.8% decrease | ||||
| Ramjee et al28 | Not used in last week | 958 | 45.4% | 0.7% increase | 12 | NR |
| Padian et al29 | % did not use condoms at any time in last 3 months | 2523 (intervention†) | 30% | 19% decrease | 24 | <0.0001 |
| 2522 (control†) | 30% | 25% decrease | <0.0001 | |||
| Unprotected sex | ||||||
| Bechange et al24 | % reporting risky sex in last 3 months‡ | 236 (sexually active) | 30.9% | 16.6% decrease | 24 | NR |
| Mugwanya et al25 § | % reporting unprotected sex with HIV+partner in last month | 4747 (taking pre-exposure prophylaxis) | 27.3% | 18% decrease | 24 | NR |
| Djomand et al31 | % reporting unprotected sex in last 6 months | 64 (males) | 66.7% | 10.0% decrease | 12 | NR |
| 33 (females) | 60.6% | 17.1% decrease | ||||
| Padian et al29 | % did not use condom at last sex | 2523 (intervention†) | 32% | 8% increase | 24 | NR |
| 2522 (control†) | 33% | 15% decrease | NR | |||
| Measures of unprotected acts | ||||||
| Kiene et al20 | % of risky acts* that were unprotected in the last 3 months | 213 | 93.1% | 0.8% increase | ||
| Kalichman et al27 | % of acts for which condoms not used in last 30 days | 29 (seroconverted after initial −ve test) | 33.1% | 24.0% decrease | 12 | <0.01 |
| 77 (persistently HIV−) | 33.3% | 22.6% decrease | <0.01 | |||
| Van Damme et al30 | Number of sex acts without condom in past week | 2120 | 1.9 acts | Relative decrease by 24.2% | 12 | <0.001 |
| Ritchie et al26 | Median sexual behaviour score¶ | 72 (serodiscordant) | 0.0085 | Relative decrease of 100.0% | 9 | NR |
| 28 (seroconcordant) | 0.024 | Relative decrease of 25.0% | ||||
Baseline percentages are calculated as the percentage of people reporting a given outcome. Changes after testing represent absolute changes unless explicitly reported as relative.
*Kiene et al20 risky sex is sex with a partner who is HIV-positive or of unknown serostatus.
†In Padian et al29 intervention participants received a diaphragm, lubricant and male condoms, while control arm participants received only male condoms.
‡Bechange et al24 defined risky sex as “risky sex as intercourse with inconsistent condom use with an HIV-infected partner or a partner of unknown serostatus during the prior 3 months”.
§Additional data obtained from Baeten et al.39
¶Ritchie et al define a sexual behaviour score by the number of different types of unprotected sex acts over the last 3 months weighted by the likelihood of HIV acquisition by the given type of sex act. Note that, unlike in Gray et al19 and Ramjee et al28 we include individuals reporting no sexual activity as having 100% condom use.
NR, not reported.