Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34742357›Full record

ReviewImplementation science communications2021

Mobile health interventions for HIV/STI prevention among youth in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): a systematic review of studies reporting implementation outcomes.

Ucheoma Nwaozuru, Chisom Obiezu-Umeh, Thembekile Shato, Florida Uzoaru, Stacey Mason, Victoria Carter, Sunita Manu, Karan Modi, Jessica Parker, Oliver Ezechi and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Implementation science communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ucheoma NwaozuruCollege for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Salus center, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63104, USA. ucheoma.nwaozuru@slu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0680-0928
Chisom Obiezu-UmehCollege for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Salus center, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63104, USA.
Thembekile ShatoBrown School, Washington University in Saint Louis, 1 Brookings Drive, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63130, USA.
Florida UzoaruCollege for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Salus center, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63104, USA.
Stacey MasonCollege for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Salus center, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63104, USA.
Victoria CarterCollege for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Salus center, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63104, USA.
Sunita ManuCollege for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Salus center, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63104, USA.
Karan ModiCollege for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Salus center, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63104, USA.
Jessica ParkerCollege for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Salus center, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63104, USA.
Oliver EzechiNigerian Institute of Medical Research, 6 Edmund Crescent, Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria.
Juliet IwelunmorCollege for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Salus center, 3545 Lafayette Avenue, Saint Louis, Missouri, 63104, USA.
Saint Louis University · USNigerian Institute of Medical Research · NGWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

ITEST: Innovative Tools to Expand Youth-Friendly HIV Self-TestingUG3HD096929 · NICHD · SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY · PI EZECHI, OLIVER CHUKWUJEKWU, IWELUNMOR, JULIET · 2018 to 2019
$2.3M
NICHD NIH HHS UG3 HD096929
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvances and proliferation of technologies such as mobile phones may provide opportunities to improve access to HIV/STI services and reach young people with high risk for HIV and STI. However, the reach, uptake, and sustainability of mobile health (mHealth) HIV/STI interventions targeting young people aged 10-24 years in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are largely unknown. To address this gap and to inform implementation science research, a review was conducted to summarize what is known, and what we need to know about implementing mhealth interventions for HIV/STI prevention targeting young people in LMICs.

methodsWe used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for this review. Drawing upon Proctor's eight implementation outcome measures, we evaluated the acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability of  m-health HIV/STI interventions targeting young people in LMICs. The search was performed from September 2020-January 2021 and updated on March 1, 2021, in Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, SCOPUS, Global Health, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were required to include an HIV/STI prevention outcome, target young people aged 10-24 years, include a comparison/control group, and reporting of atleast one implementation outcome as outlined by Proctor.

resultsA total of 1386 articles were located, and their titles and abstracts were screened. Of these, 57 full-text articles were reviewed and subsequently, and 11 articles representing 6 unique interventions were included in the systematic review. Acceptability 6 (100%), appropriateness 6 (100%), and feasibility 5(83%) were the most frequently evaluated implementation outcomes. Adoption 2 (33%), fidelity 1 (17%), and cost 1 (17%) were rarely reported; penetration and sustainability were not reported.

conclusionsThis review contributes to implementation science literature by synthesizing key implementation outcomes of mHealth HIV/STI interventions targeting young people in LMICs. Future research is needed on m-health HIV/STI implementation outcomes, particularly the penetration, cost, and long-term sustainability of these interventions. Doing so will enhance the field's understanding of the mechanisms by which these interventions lead or do not lead to changes in high HIV/STI risk and vulnerability among young people in LMICs.

Indexed as

HIV/STI preventionImplementation outcomesLow- and middle-income countriesMobile healthMobile phoneYoung people

Identifiers

PMID34742357
PMCPMC8572487
OpenAlexW3214652206

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.