Table 2. Characteristics of community-based condom distribution programs in the United States included in systematic review, by intervention categorya.
| Author & Year | Study location (Setting) | Data Collection Year | Target population (inclusion/exclusion criteria) | Demographic information | Co-interventions (Provider / delivery modality)b | Study designc (Number of participants) | Reported outcomes |
Follow-up period |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ongoing (without co-interventions) | ||||||||
| Calsyn 1992 [29] | Seattle, WA (Urban) | Dec 1989—May 1990 | Male drug users (all men receiving outpatient drug abuse treatment at the VA Med. Center) | Age: 8.7% <35 yrs.; 66.1% 35–44; 17.4% 45–55; 7.8% >55 Sex (% F): 0% Race/Ethnicity: 76.7% White; 22.3% Black; 1.0% Other |
None (N/A) | Experimentald Pre-Post Single-Arm Cluster (103) | Mean use of condoms for vaginal intercourse events (past 2 mo.) | 5 mo. |
| Cohen 1999 (Area B) [30] | New Orleans, LA (Urban) | 1994–1996 | African-American men (age 15–45 yrs., approached in high risk neighborhoods of New Orleans) | Age: mean 29.3 yrs. Sex (% F): 0% Race/Ethnicity: 100% Afr. Amer. |
None (N/A) | Single-Arm Pre-Post Cross-Sectional (≥940)e | Condom use at last sex; At least 2 sex partners (past yr.) | 1 yr; 2 yrs. |
| Eisenberg 2013 [31] | Statewide, MN (Urban/rural) | 2010–2011 | Young adults (undergraduate student recruited from selected colleges/ universities, age 18–24 yrs., sex. active in the past yr, and not married) | Age: range 18–24 yrs. Sex (% F): 63% Race/Ethnicity: 83.6% White; 3.0% Black; 2.8% Hisp.; 5.5% Asian/Pacific Islander; 2.3% Amer. Indian/Alaskan Native; 2.9% mixed/other |
None (N/A) | Ecologic (6,318) | No condom at last intercourse | N/A |
| Ross 2004 (Comparison arm) [32] | Houston/ Harris County, TX (Urban) | 1998–2000 | Gen. population (age 18+ yrs. and living in zip codes with relatively high rates of syphilis) | Age: NR Sex (% F): 41.6% Race/Ethnicity: 92.3% Afr. Amer.; 2.2% White |
None (N/A) | Experimental Single-Arm Pre-Post Cross-Sectional (789 across 2 cross-sect. waves) | Proportion of times used condoms of times had sex (past 4 weeks); Number of sex partners (past 4 weeks) | 2 yrs. |
| Ongoing-plus (with co-interventions) | ||||||||
| Alstead 1999 [33] | King County, Seattle area, WA (Urban) | 1995 | Youth (age 15–17 yrs.) | Age: mean(SD) 16.0 (.8) yrs. Sex (% F): 48% Race/Ethnicity: 38% White; 30% Afr. Amer.; 16% Asian/Pacific Islander; 16% other (incl. Hisp., Native Amer., and multi-ethnic) |
Behavioral & skill building (Media) | Pre-Post Single-Arm Cross-Sectional (1,425 across 3 cross-sectional waves) | Condom use at last intercourse | 1–7 mo. |
| Lauby 2000 [34] | Pittsburgh, PA; West Philadelphia, PA; Portland, OR (Urban) | 1993–1996 | High risk women (age 15–34 yrs., approached in a high risk community, sexually active in the past 30 days) | Age: mean 25 yrs.Sex (% F): 100%Race/Ethnicity: 73.1% Afr. Amer. | Behavioral & skill building + Street outreach (Peers + Media) | Experimental Double-Arm Pre-Post Cross-Sectional (3,723) | Condom use during most recent sex; Consistent condom use (past 30 days) | 36 mo. |
| Ross 2004 (Intv. arm) [32] | Houston/ Harris County, TX (Urban) | 1998–2000 | General population (age 18+ yrs., living in zip codes with relatively high rates of syphilis) | Age: NR Sex (% F): 37.6% Race/Ethnicity: 91.0% Afr. Amer.; 4.2% White |
Behavioral and skill building + Street outreach (Peers + Media) | Experimental Single-Arm Pre-Post Cross-Sectional (841 across 2 cross-sect. waves) | Proportion of times used condoms of times had sex (past 4 weeks); Number of sex partners (past 4 weeks) | 2 yrs. |
| Sellers 1994 [35] | Boston, MA; Hartford, CT (Urban) | Sept 1989-Dec 1991 | Latino youth (age 14–20 yrs.) | Age: range 14–20 yrs. Sex (% F): NR Race/Ethnicity: 100% Hisp. (94% Puerto Rican) |
Gen. HIV & sex health edu + Formal CUT + Street outreach (Professional staff + Peers + Media) | Experimental Non-RCT Double-Arm Cluster (586) | Multiple (2+) sexual partners (past 6 mo.) | 18 mo. |
| Coupon-based (with co-interventions) | ||||||||
| Bull 2008 [36] | CA: Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego; NV: Las Vegas (Urban) | 2004–2005 | Young adult women (15–25 yrs.) | Age: 41.9% 15–17 yrs.; 18.5% 18–19; 39.5% 20–25; 0.1% missing Sex (% F): 100%Race/Ethnicity: 32.3% Afr. Amer.; 35.4% Latina; 30.1% other; 2.2% missing |
Gen. HIV & sex health edu + Behavioral & skill building (Media) | Cross-Sectional (3,003 interviewed at follow-up) | Used a condom at last sex | 7–10 mo. |
| Cohen 1992 [37] | Los Angeles, CA (Urban) | NR | Gen. pop. (approached at a public health STD clinic) | Age: median 27.9 yrs. (men in study); 26.6 (women in study) Sex (% F): 40.2% Race/Ethnicity: 20.6% Hisp.; 71.5% Black; 4.5% White; 3% Asian; 3.5% Other or unknown |
Formal CUT + Behavioral & skill building (Professional staff) | Randomized Controlled Trial (analyzed condom distr. and control groups only; 503) | STD reinfection | 6–9 mo. |
Legend: CD, Condom distribution; CUT, Condom use training; MSM, Men who have sex with men; N/A, Not applicable; NR, Not reported; PWID, People who inject drugs; STD, Sexually transmitted disease.
a We separately analyzed and reported a group of studies (Limited) that initially met our broad inclusion criteria, but that were implemented at the individual context level and were limited in terms of frequency and/or duration of access to condoms (e.g., participants could take as many condoms as they wanted, but only at motivational sessions or when they made contact with a street outreach worker). See S5 File for details.
b Intervention category and co-interventions listed are those that comprise the unique elements tested in the study (i.e., common elements provided to both the intervention and control group are not listed).
c Study design reflects the way reported data were analyzed in this review in order to extract an effect of condom distribution. It does not always match the design of the study as originally implemented.
d Studies are considered experimental if investigators controlled the intervention allocation.
e Total number of respondents not reported. Maximum item-level N reported in the publication was 941 for Area B across 3 waves.