SynthesisAmerican journal of health promotion : AJHP2020
Condom Social Marketing Effects in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review Update, 1990 to 2019.
Synthesis in American journal of health promotion : AJHP, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Better Together?: A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of HIV Prevention Interventions that Build or Strengthen Social Ties.AIDS and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- The Evidence Project: Protocol for Systematic Reviews of Behavioral Interventions and Behavioral Aspects of Biomedical Interventions for HIV Prevention, Treatment, and Health Service Delivery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.AIDS education and prevention : official publication of the International Society for AIDS Education · 2024Article
- The paradox of HIV prevention: did biomedical prevention trials show how effective behavioral prevention can be?AIDS (London, England) · 2020Article
- Implementation Science to Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo update the prior systematic review from studies published in the past 9 years that examine the effects of condom social marketing (CSM) programs on condom use in low- and middle-income countries. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and EMBASE. Hand searching of STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: (a) Published from 1990 to January 16, 2019, (b) low- or middle-income country, (c) evaluated CSM, (d) analyses across preintervention to postintervention exposure or across multiple study arms, (e) measured condom use behavior, and (f) sought to prevent HIV transmission. DATA EXTRACTION: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 2 reviewers extracted citation, inclusion criteria, methods, study population, setting, sampling, study design, unit of analysis, loss to follow-up, comparison group characteristics, intervention characteristics, and eligible outcome results. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 2012 review found 6 studies (combined N = 23 048). In a meta-analysis, the pooled odds ratio for condom use was 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.42-2.84) for the most recent sexual encounter and 2.10 (95% CI: 1.51-2.91) for a composite of all condom use outcomes. Studies had significant methodological limitations. Of 518 possible new citations identified in the update, no new articles met our inclusion criteria.
conclusionsMore studies are needed with stronger methodological rigor to help provide evidence for the continued use of this approach globally. There is a dearth of studies over the past decade on the effectiveness of CSM in increasing condom use in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).
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.