Behavioral interventions to promote condom use among women living with HIV: a systematic review update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral interventions have been essential components of HIV prevention approaches, especially those aimed to promote safe sexual practices. We conducted a comprehensive literature search without language restrictions between 1980 and July 2014 to identify randomized controlled trials or controlled studies investigating behavioral interventions which: included women living with HIV; focused on condom use promotion; presented/analyzed outcomes by gender; used a 3-month follow-up or more; and considered at least one HIV-related behavioral or biological outcome. Eight studies comprising a total of 1,355 women living with HIV were included in the meta-analyses, and 13 studies were qualitatively described. When compared to standard care or minimal support intervention, behavioral interventions did not demonstrate an effect on increasing consistent condom use at the 3-month follow-up (RR = 0.92; 95%CI: 0.73, 1.16; p = 0.48), 6-month follow-up (RR = 1.13; 95%CI: 0.96, 1.34; p = 0.15), and 12-month follow-up (RR = 0.91; 95%CI: 0.77, 1.08; p = 0.30). Behavioral interventions also failed to reach positive effect in reduction of unprotected sexual intercourse at 6-months (MD = -1.80; 95%CI: -4.21, 0.62; p = 0.14) and 12-months follow-up (MD = -1.39; 95%CI: -2.29, 0.21; p = 0.09). These findings should be interpreted with caution since they are based on a few small trials. New researches are needed to assess the potential gains from a combination of interventions that promote safe sexual behavior with a harm reduction and gender approach, particularly in developing countries where HIV infection rates remain high.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".