Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28771484›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2017

Effectiveness of community-based condom distribution interventions to prevent HIV in the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mohsen Malekinejad, Andrea Parriott, Janet C Blodgett, Hacsi Horvath, Ram K Shrestha, Angela B Hutchinson, Paul Volberding, James G Kahn

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mohsen MalekinejadPhillip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Andrea ParriottPhillip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Janet C BlodgettPhillip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Hacsi HorvathPhillip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Ram K ShresthaCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Angela B HutchinsonCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Paul VolberdingGlobal Health Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
James G KahnPhillip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America.
Lee University · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

Virology CoreP30AI027763 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI STEVEN Grant DEEKS · 1988 to 2026
$93.6M
NCHHSTP CDC HHS U38 PS004649NIAID NIH HHS P30 AI027763
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite significant public health implications, the extent to which community-based condom distribution interventions (CDI) prevent HIV infection in the United States is not well understood.

methodsWe systematically reviewed research evidence applying Cochrane Collaboration methods. We used a comprehensive search strategy to search multiple bibliographic databases for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs published from 1986-2017. We focused on CDI that made condoms widely available or accessible in community settings. Eligible outcomes were HIV infection (primary), sexually transmitted infections, condom use, and multiple sexual partnership. Two reviewers independently screened citations to assess their eligibility, extracted study data, and assessed risk of bias. We calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled them using random-effects models. We assessed evidence quality using GRADE.

resultsWe reviewed 5,110 unique records. Nine studies (including one RCT) met eligibility criteria. Studies were conducted in 10 US states between 1989 and 2011. All studies were at high risk of bias. Interventions were categorized into three groups: "Ongoing" (unlimited access to condoms), "Ongoing-plus" (unlimited access to condoms, with co-interventions), and "Coupon-based" (coupons redeemed for condoms). No studies reported incident HIV. Ongoing CDI (four non-RCTs) modestly reduced condomless sex (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99). Ongoing-plus CDI (two non-RCTs) significantly reduced multiple sexual partnership (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.87). Of two coupon-based studies, one (non-RCT) showed reduction in condomless sex in female participants (Odds Ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96), while the other one (RCT) showed no effect on STI incidence (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.31). Evidence quality was "very low" for all outcomes.

conclusionsCDI may reduce some risky sexual behaviors, but the evidence for any reduction is limited and of low-quality. Lack of biological outcomes precludes assessing the link between CDI and HIV incidence.

Indexed as

CondomsResidence CharacteristicsHealth PromotionHIV InfectionsHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID28771484
PMCPMC5542551
OpenAlexW2744802282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.