↓ Skip to main content

Behavioral interventions for improving contraceptive use among women living with HIV

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Behavioral interventions for improving contraceptive use among women living with HIV
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010243.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laureen M Lopez, Thomas W Grey, Mario Chen, Julie Denison, Gretchen Stuart

Abstract

Contraception services can help meet the family planning goals of women living with HIV as well as prevent mother-to-child transmission. Due to antiretroviral therapy, survival has improved for people living with HIV, and more HIV-positive women may desire to have a child or another child. Behavioral interventions, involving counseling or education, can help women choose and use an appropriate contraceptive method. We systematically reviewed studies of behavioral interventions for HIV-positive women intended to inform contraceptive choice, encourage contraceptive use, or promote adherence to a contraceptive regimen. Until 2 August 2016, we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. For the initial review, we examined reference lists and unpublished project reports, and we contacted investigators in the field. Studies evaluated a behavioral intervention for improving contraceptive use for family planning (FP). The comparison could have been another behavioral intervention, usual care, or no intervention. We also considered studies that compared HIV-positive versus HIV-negative women. We included non-randomized studies as well as randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Primary outcomes were pregnancy and contraception use, e.g. uptake of a new method or improved use or continuation of current method. Secondary outcomes were knowledge of contraceptive effectiveness and attitude about contraception or a specific contraceptive method. Two authors independently extracted the data. One entered the data into RevMan and a second verified accuracy. We evaluated RCTs according to recommended principles. For non-randomized studies, we examined the quality of evidence using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Given the need to control for confounding factors in non-randomized studies, we used adjusted estimates from the models when available. Where we did not have adjusted analyses, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Due to varied study designs and interventions, we did not conduct meta-analysis. With three new reports, 10 studies from seven African countries met our eligibility criteria. Eight non-randomized studies included 8980 participants. Two cluster RCTs had 7136 participants across 36 sites. Three studies compared a special FP intervention versus usual care, three examined FP services integrated with HIV services, and four compared outcomes for HIV-positive and HIV-negative women.In four studies with high or moderate quality evidence, the special intervention was associated with contraceptive use or pregnancy. A study from Nigeria compared enhanced versus basic FP services. All sites had integrated FP and HIV services. Women with enhanced services were more likely to use a modern contraceptive method versus women with basic services (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.31 to 4.72). A cluster RCT conducted in Kenya compared integrated FP and HIV services versus standard referral to a separate FP clinic. Women with integrated services were more likely to use more effective contraception (adjusted OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.63). Another cluster RCT compared an HIV prevention and FP intervention versus usual care in Kenya, Namibia, and Tanzania. Women at the special intervention sites in Tanzania were more likely to use highly effective contraception (adjusted OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.10). They were less likely to report unprotected sex (no condom use) at last intercourse (adjusted OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.40). Across the three countries, women at the special intervention sites were less likely to report any unprotected sex in the past two weeks (adjusted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.99). A study in Côte d'Ivoire integrated HIV and FP services. HIV-positive women had a lower incidence of undesired pregnancy, but not overall pregnancy, compared with HIV-negative women (1.07 versus 2.38; reported P = 0.023). The studies since 2009 focused on using modern or more effective methods of contraception. In those later reports, training on FP methods and counseling was more common, which may strengthen the intervention and improve the ability to meet clients' needs. The quality of evidence was moderate from the more recent studies and low for those from the 1990s.Comparative research involving contraceptive counseling for HIV-positive women is limited. The FP field needs better ways to help women choose an appropriate contraceptive and continue using that method. Improved counseling methods are especially needed for limited resource settings, such as clinics focusing on people living with HIV.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 225 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 27%
Researcher 36 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 12%
Unspecified 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 22 10%
Other 58 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 36%
Social Sciences 36 16%
Unspecified 34 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 13%
Psychology 13 6%
Other 33 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,639,823
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,448
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,458
of 262,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#103
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.