The effect of HIV educational interventions on HIV-related knowledge, condom use, and HIV incidence in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As high stigmatization of HIV and relatively low knowledge of HIV transmission and prevention measures persist in Sub-Saharan Africa, the improvement of HIV-related knowledge, and the evaluation of which types of interventions are most effective in this regard, is an important aspect of further prevention efforts. In addition, it is of interest to assess whether improvements in HIV-related knowledge may actually lead to increased engagement in preventive behaviours and ultimately lower HIV transmission. This study therefore aims to systematically review and meta-analyse the evidence for the effect of HIV-related knowledge interventions on 1) the improvement of HIV-related knowledge, 2) subsequent risk reduction behaviour (condom use), 3) lower incidence of HIV infection. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the Embase and Medline databases, returning 746 after duplicate removal. Following abstract and full-text screening, 36 studies were ultimately included in the final review. Meta-analyses were conducted in R, using random-effects models, for the HIV-related knowledge, condom use, and HIV incidence outcomes, where sufficient data were available. RESULTS: Interventions assessed in the reviewed studies varied, including computer-based interventions, mass media campaigns, and peer education interventions. The interventions were generally found to be effective at improving HIV-related knowledge in the target population, with 10 studies reporting improved knowledge of risk reduction through condom use in the intervention group (out of 11 studies reporting data for this outcome), with 6 reporting these differences as significant (p < 0.05). Regarding knowledge of transmission routes, studies assessing peer education interventions often reported significant improvements in the intervention group. Meta-analysis results showed significantly higher odds among the intervention groups of correct knowledge of: risk reduction through condom use (OR: 3.09, 95%CI: 1.83-5.22, p < 0.0001), sexual transmission of HIV (OR: 5.86, 95%CI: 2.65-12.97, p < 0.001) and transmission through sharps (OR: 4.35, 95%CI = 3.21-5.90, p < 0.001), but non-significantly lower odds of HIV infection (OR: 0.97, 95%CI: 0.66-1.41, p = 0.854). CONCLUSION: Peer-education-based interventions appear to be particularly effective in facilitating the uptake of HIV-related knowledge, particularly pertaining to transmission routes. There is some evidence that improved knowledge of HIV transmission and prevention facilitates increased subsequent engagement in preventive measures, although this requires further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Number: CRD42018090600.
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 | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".