Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24469222›Full record

Trial reportAIDS and behavior2014

Pregnant women living with HIV (WLH) supported at clinics by peer WLH: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Linda Richter, Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus, Alastair Van Heerden, Alan Stein, Mark Tomlinson, Jessica M Harwood, Tamsen Rochat, Heidi Van Rooyen, W Scott Comulada, Zihling Tang

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in AIDS and behavior, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Linda RichterHuman Sciences Research Council, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus
Alastair Van Heerden
Alan Stein
Mark Tomlinson
Jessica M Harwood
Tamsen Rochat
Heidi Van Rooyen
W Scott Comulada
Zihling Tang

Funding

UCLA Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR000124 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI DUBINETT, STEVEN M. · 2012 to 2015
$57.0M
UCLA Rapid, Relevant, Rigorous Implementation Science HubP30MH058107 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI RAPHAEL J LANDOVITZ · 1997 to 2026
$53.5M
Virology CoreP30AI028697 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ANTON, PETER A · 1991 to 2018
$39.9M
Mentor Mothers: A Sustainable Family Intervention in South African TownshipsR01MH077553 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ROTHERAM-BORUS, MARY JANE · 2006 to 2010
$3.5M
The Global Partnership for AIDS Behavioral Research: South Africa and U.S.R24AA022919 · NIAAA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ROTHERAM-BORUS, MARY JANE · 2013 to 2017
$2.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000124NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR000124NIAAA NIH HHS R24 AA022919NIAID NIH HHS 5P30AI028697NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI028697NIMH NIH HHS 1R01MH077553NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH058107NIMH NIH HHS P30MH58107NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH077553Wellcome Trust 097410
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Throughout Africa, Peer Mentors who are women living with HIV (WLH) are supporting pregnant WLH at antenatal and primary healthcare clinics (McColl in BMJ 344:e1590, 2012). We evaluate a program using this intervention strategy at 1.5 months post-birth. In a cluster randomized controlled trial in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, eight clinics were randomized for their WLH to receive either: standard care (SC), based on national guidelines to prevent mother-to-child transmission (4 clinics; n = 656 WLH); or an enhanced intervention (EI; 4 clinics; n = 544 WLH). The EI consisted of four antenatal and four postnatal small group sessions led by Peer Mentors, in addition to SC. WLH were recruited during pregnancy and 70 % were reassessed at 1.5 months post-birth. EI's effect was ascertained on 16 measures of maternal and infant well-being using random effects regressions to control for clinic clustering. A binomial test for correlated outcomes evaluated EI's overall effectiveness. Among EI WLH reassessed, 87 % attended at least one intervention session (mean 4.1, SD 2.0). Significant overall benefits were found in EI compared to SC using the binomial test. However, it is important to note that EI WLH were significantly less likely to adhere to ARV during pregnancy compared to SC. Secondarily, compared to SC, EI WLH were more likely to ask partners to test for HIV, better protected their infants from HIV transmission, and were less likely to have depressed mood and stunted infants. Adherence to clinic intervention groups was low, yet, there were benefits for maternal and infant health at 1.5 months post-birth.

Indexed as

Maternal Health ServicesMentorsAdultAnti-HIV AgentsDepressionFemaleHealth BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHIV InfectionsHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfectious Disease Transmission, VerticalMalePatient CompliancePeer GroupAnti-HIV Agents

Identifiers

PMID24469222
PMCPMC4109271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.