Cochrane review: Abstinence‐plus programs for HIV infection prevention in high‐income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Abstinence‐plus interventions promote sexual abstinence as the best means of preventing acquisition of HIV, but also encourage safer‐sex strategies (eg condom use) for sexually active participants. Objectives To assess the effects of abstinence‐plus programs for HIV prevention in high‐income countries. Search strategy We searched 30 electronic databases (eg CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, AIDSLINE, PsycINFO) ending February 2007. Cross‐referencing, hand‐searching, and contacting experts yielded additional citations. Selection criteria We included randomized and quasi‐randomized controlled trials evaluating abstinence‐plus interventions in high‐income countries (as defined by the World Bank). Interventions were any efforts that encouraged sexual abstinence as the best means of HIV prevention, but also promoted safer sex. Results were self‐reported biological outcomes, behavioral outcomes, and HIV knowledge. Data collection and analysis Three reviewers independently appraised 20070 citations and 325 full‐text papers for inclusion and methodological quality; 39 evaluations were included. Due to heterogeneity and data unavailability, we presented the results of individual studies instead of a meta‐analysis. Main results Studies enrolled 37724 North American youth; participants were ethnically diverse. Programs took place in schools (10), community facilities (24), both schools and community facilities (2), healthcare facilities (2), and family homes (1). Median final follow‐up occurred 12 months after baseline. Results showed no evidence that abstinence‐plus programs can affect self‐reported sexually transmitted infection (STI) incidence, and limited evidence that programs can reduce self‐reported pregnancy incidence. Results for behavioral outcomes were promising; 23 of 39 evaluations found a significantly protective intervention effect for at least one behavioral outcome. Consistently favorable program effects were found for HIV knowledge. No adverse effects were observed. Several evaluations found that one version of an abstinence‐plus program was more effective than another, suggesting that more research into intervention mechanisms is warranted. Methodological strengths included large samples and statistical controls for baseline values. Weaknesses included under‐utilization of relevant outcomes, self‐report bias, and analyses neglecting attrition and clustered randomization. Authors' conclusions Many abstinence‐plus programs appear to reduce short‐term and long‐term HIV risk behavior among youth in high‐income countries. Evidence for program effects on biological measures is limited. Evaluations consistently show no adverse program effects for any outcomes, including the incidence and frequency of sexual activity. Trials comparing abstinence‐only, abstinence‐plus, and safer‐sex interventions are needed. Plain Language Summary Abstinence‐plus programs for preventing HIV infection in high‐income countries (as defined by the World Bank) Abstinence‐plus programs are widespread interventions that primarily target young people. On the premise that sexual abstinence is the best way to prevent HIV, abstinence‐plus interventions aim to prevent, stop, or decrease sexual activity; however, programs also promote condom use and other safer‐sexstrategies as alternatives for sexually active participants. Abstinence‐plus programs differ from abstinence‐only interventions, which promote abstinence as the exclusive means of HIV prevention without encouraging safer sex. This review included 39 randomized and quasi‐randomized controlled trials comparing abstinence‐plus programs to various control groups (eg “usual care,” no intervention). Although we conducted an extensive international search for trials, all included studies were conducted among youth in the US, Canada, and the Bahamas (total baseline enrolment=37724 participants). The included programs took place in schools, community centers, and healthcare facilities. We did not conduct a meta‐analysis because of missing data and variation in program designs. Using various control groups, 24 of 39 evaluations showed a significantly protective intervention effect on at least one biological or behavioral outcome at short‐term, medium‐term, or long‐term follow‐up. Eight trials found no evidence that abstinence‐plus programs affect self‐reported sexually transmitted infection (STI) incidence and limited evidence that programs have a protective effect on self‐reported pregnancy incidence. Results for behavioral outcomes were inconsistent across studies. Findings in almost every trial assessing HIV‐related knowledge favored the intervention group over controls. No harms were observed for any outcome, including incidence and frequency of sexual activity. Limitations for this review include underreporting of relevant outcomes, reliance on program participants to report their behaviors accurately, and methodological weaknesses in the trials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".