Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35597929›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Safe spaces for beneficiaries of a combination HIV prevention intervention for adolescent girls and young women in South Africa: access, feasibility, and acceptability.

Catherine Mathews, Zoe Duby, Brittany Bunce, Nathanael van Blydenstein, Kate Bergh, Anthony Ambrose, Fiona Mpungu, Kim Jonas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. 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
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  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.

Catherine MathewsHealth Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa. catherine.mathews@mrc.ac.za.
Zoe DubyHealth Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.
Brittany BunceHealth Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.
Nathanael van BlydensteinNetworking HIV and AIDS Community of Southern Africa (NACOSA), Cape Town, South Africa.
Kate BerghHealth Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.
Anthony AmbroseNetworking HIV and AIDS Community of Southern Africa (NACOSA), Cape Town, South Africa.
Fiona MpunguNetworking HIV and AIDS Community of Southern Africa (NACOSA), Cape Town, South Africa.
Kim JonasHealth Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSafe Spaces are a feature of combination HIV prevention interventions for adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) in South Africa. We investigated whether AGYW at risk for adverse sexual and reproductive health (SRH) outcomes accessed Safe Spaces that were part of an intervention, as well as their feasibility and acceptability.

methodsIn December 2020 to February 2021, as part of a process evaluation of a combination HIV prevention intervention, we randomly sampled 2160 AGYW intervention beneficiaries aged 15-24 years from 6 of the 12 intervention districts. We invited them to participate in a phone survey, with questions about their vulnerability to adverse SRH outcomes, and participation in intervention components including Safe Spaces. We examined factors associated with use of Safe Spaces using bivariate analyses and Pearson's chi squared tests. We also conducted in-depth interviews with 50 AGYW beneficiaries, 27 intervention implementers, 4 health workers, 7 social workers, and 12 community stakeholders, to explore perceptions and experiences of the intervention. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data was performed.

resultsAt least 30 Safe Spaces were established across 6 districts. Five hundred fifteen of two thousand one hundred sixty sampled AGYW participated in the survey of whom 22.6% visited a Safe Space, accessing HIV testing (52.2%), mobile health services (21.2%) and counselling for distress (24.8%) while there. Beneficiaries of lower socioeconomic status (SES) were less likely to have visited a Safe Space, compared with those of higher SES (13.6% versus 25.3%; p < 0.01). Implementers described political, structural and financial challenges in identifying and setting up Safe Spaces that were safe, accessible and adequately-resourced, and challenges with AGYW not utilising them as expected. AGYW shared positive views of Safe Spaces, describing benefits such as access to computers and the internet, support with homework and job and education applications, and a space in which to connect with peers.

conclusionAGYW are attracted to Safe Spaces by educational and employment promoting interventions and recreational activities, and many will take up the offer of SRH services while there. The poorest AGYW are more likely to be excluded, therefore, an understanding of the obstacles to, and enablers of their inclusion should inform Safe Space intervention design.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsAdolescentCounselingFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansSexual BehaviorSouth AfricaAccessibilityAdolescent girlsFeasibilityHIV preventionSafe spaceYoung women

Identifiers

PMID35597929
PMCPMC9123612

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.