Title |
Efficacy of Structural-Level Condom Distribution Interventions: A Meta-Analysis of U.S. and International Studies, 1998–2007
|
---|---|
Published in |
AIDS and Behavior, October 2010
|
DOI | 10.1007/s10461-010-9812-y |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Mahnaz R. Charania, Nicole Crepaz, Carolyn Guenther-Gray, Kirk Henny, Adrian Liau, Leigh A. Willis, Cynthia M. Lyles |
Abstract |
This systematic review examines the overall efficacy of U.S. and international-based structural-level condom distribution interventions (SLCDIs) on HIV risk behaviors and STIs and identifies factors associated with intervention efficacy. A comprehensive literature search of studies published from January 1988 through September 2007 yielded 21 relevant studies. Significant intervention effects were found for the following outcomes: condom use, condom acquisition/condom carrying, delayed sexual initiation among youth, and reduced incident STIs. The stratified analyses for condom use indicated that interventions were efficacious for various groups (e.g., youth, adults, males, commercial sex workers, clinic populations, and populations in areas with high STI incidence). Interventions increasing the availability of or accessibility to condoms or including additional individual, small-group or community-level components along with condom distribution were shown to be efficacious in increasing condom use behaviors. This review suggests that SLCDIs provide an efficacious means of HIV/STI prevention. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Comoros | 1 | 33% |
Indonesia | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 5 | 2% |
Costa Rica | 1 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Uzbekistan | 1 | <1% |
Argentina | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 250 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 64 | 25% |
Researcher | 42 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 11% |
Student > Bachelor | 22 | 8% |
Other | 20 | 8% |
Other | 47 | 18% |
Unknown | 37 | 14% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 75 | 29% |
Social Sciences | 68 | 26% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 9% |
Psychology | 18 | 7% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
Other | 19 | 7% |
Unknown | 49 | 19% |