SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013
Behavioral interventions for improving contraceptive use among women living with HIV.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of contraceptive continuation among women living with HIV.Contraception · 2018Pooled it
- CHARM, a gender equity and family planning intervention for men and couples in rural India: protocol for the cluster randomized controlled trial evaluation.Reproductive health · 2016Trial
- Estimating the market size for a dual prevention pill: adding contraception to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to increase uptake.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2021Article
- Longitudinal patterns of unmet need for contraception among women living with HIV on antiretroviral therapy in South Africa.PloS one · 2018Article
- Prevalence and factors influencing modern contraceptive use among HIV-positive women in Kilimanjaro region, northern Tanzania.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2018Article
- Integrating reproductive health services into HIV care: strategies for successful implementation in a low-resource HIV clinic in Lilongwe, Malawi.The journal of family planning and reproductive health care · 2016Article
- Evaluation of Transtheoretical Model-Based Family Education Among Females of Zahedan (Southeast of Iran).Iranian Red Crescent medical journal · 2015Article
- Protocol for a systematic review on the effect of demand generation interventions on uptake and use of modern contraceptives in LMIC.Systematic reviews · 2015Article
- Contraceptive Dynamics in Rural Northern Malawi: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.International perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2015Article
- Implementation and Operational Research: A Time-Motion Analysis of HIV Transmission Prevention Counseling and Antiretroviral Adherence Messages in Western Kenya.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2015Article
- Microbicides for the Treatment of Sexually Transmitted HIV Infections.Journal of pharmaceutics · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContraception services can help meet the family planning goals of women living with HIV as well as prevent mother-to-child transmission. Due to the increased availability of antiretroviral therapy, survival has improved for people living with HIV, and more HIV-positive women may desire to have a child or another child. This review examines behavioral interventions to improve contraceptive use, for family planning, among women who are HIV-positive.
objectivesWe systematically reviewed studies that examined behavioral interventions for HIV-positive women that were intended to inform contraceptive choice, encourage contraceptive use, or promote adherence to a contraceptive regimen. SEARCH
methodsThrough October 2012, we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, POPLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. For other relevant papers, we examined reference lists and unpublished project reports, and contacted investigators in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies evaluated a behavioral intervention for improving contraceptive use for contraception. The comparison could be another behavioral intervention, usual care, or no intervention. We also considered studies that compared HIV-positive women versus HIV-negative women. We included nonrandomized (observational) studies as well as randomized trials.Primary outcomes were pregnancy and contraception use, e.g., uptake of a new method, improved use or continuation of current method. Secondary outcomes were knowledge of contraceptive effectiveness and attitude about contraception in general or about a specific contraceptive method. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted the data. One author entered the data into RevMan and a second verified accuracy. We examined the quality of evidence using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale.Given the need to control for confounding factors in observational 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, we did not conduct meta-analysis. MAIN
resultsThe seven studies meeting our inclusion criteria had a total of 8882 women. All were conducted in Africa. Three studies compared a special intervention versus standard services. In one, the special intervention site showed greater use of non-condom contraceptives per visit (OR 6.40; 95% CI 5.37 to 7.62) and reported a lower pregnancy incidence. In another study, use of modern contraceptives was more likely for women at sites with enhanced versus basic integrated services (OR 2.48; 95% CI 1.31 to 4.72), but the groups did not differ significantly in change from baseline. In the third study, new use of modern contraceptives, excluding condoms, was less likely for women with integrated services versus those with routine care (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.75), but new use of condoms was more likely (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.52 to 1.98).Four older studies compared HIV-positive women versus HIV-negative women. None showed any significant difference between the HIV-status groups in use of modern contraceptives. Two did not provide an intervention for the HIV-negative women. In the larger of the two studies, HIV-positive women were less likely to become pregnant (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.69). HIV-positive women were more likely to discontinue their hormonal contraceptive (OR 2.52; 95% CI 1.53 to 4.14) but more likely to use condoms (OR 2.82; 95% CI 2.18 to 3.65) and spermicide (OR 2.36; 95% CI 1.69 to 3.30). Two studies provided the intervention to both HIV-status groups. One included many of the women from the study just mentioned, and also showed fewer pregnancies for HIV-positive women (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68). In the other study, the HIV-status groups were not significantly different for pregnancy or consistent condom use. AUTHORS'
conclusionsComparative research on contraceptive counseling for HIV-positive women has been limited. We found little innovation in the behavioral interventions. Our ability to make statements about overall results is hampered by varied study designs, interventions, and outcome assessments. The quality of evidence was moderate. Since some of these studies were conducted, improvements in HIV treatment have influenced the fertility intentions of HIV-positive people.The family planning field needs better ways to help women choose an appropriate contraceptive and continue using that chosen method. Women with HIV may have special concerns regarding family planning. Research could focus on assessing the woman's needs and training providers to address those issues rather than delivering standardized information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.