Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Aug;27(8):2763-2773.
doi: 10.1007/s10461-023-04000-8. Epub 2023 Jan 27.

Quantitative Methods Used to Evaluate Impact of Combination HIV Prevention Intervention: A Methodological Systematic Review

Andrainolo Ravalihasy  1   2   3 , Pearl Anne Ante-Testard  4   5 , Lidia Kardas-Sloma  6 , Yazdan Yazdanpanah  7 , Manuela De Allegri  8 , Valéry Ridde  9   10
Affiliations

Quantitative Methods Used to Evaluate Impact of Combination HIV Prevention Intervention: A Methodological Systematic Review

Andrainolo Ravalihasy et al. AIDS Behav. 2023 Aug.

Abstract

Combination HIV prevention aims to provide the right mix of biomedical, behavioral and structural interventions, and is considered the best approach to curb the HIV pandemic. The impact evaluation of combined HIV prevention intervention (CHPI) provides critical information for decision making. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to map the designs and methods used in these studies. We searched original articles indexed in Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed. Fifty-eight studies assessing the impact of CHPI on HIV transmission were included. Most of the studies took place in Asia or sub-Saharan Africa and were published from 2000 onward. We identified 36 (62.1%) quasi-experimental studies (posttest, pretest-posttest and nonequivalent group designs) and 22 (37.9%) experimental studies (randomized designs). The findings suggest that diverse methods are already rooted in CHPI impact evaluation practices as recommended but should be better reported. CHPI impact evaluation would benefit from more comprehensive approaches.

Keywords: Combination HIV prevention intervention; Decision-making; Evidence-based; Impact evaluation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

We declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram for study selection process
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS . Unequal, unprepared, under threat: why bold action against inequalities is needed to end AIDS, stop COVID-19 and prepare for future pandemics. Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; 2021.
    1. Padian NS, Buvé A, Balkus J, Serwadda D, Cates W. Biomedical interventions to prevent HIV infection: evidence, challenges, and way forward. Lancet. 2008;372:585–599. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60885-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Globerman J, Mitra S, Gogolishvili D, Rueda S, Schoffel L, Gangbar K, Shi Q, Rourke SB. HIV/STI prevention interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Med. 2017;12:450–467. doi: 10.1515/med-2017-0064. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Iskarpatyoti BS, Lebov J, Hart L, Thomas J, Mandal M. Evaluations of structural interventions for HIV prevention: a review of approaches and methods. AIDS Behav. 2018;22:1253–1264. doi: 10.1007/s10461-017-1997-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kurth AE, Celum C, Baeten JM, Vermund SH, Wasserheit JN. Combination HIV prevention: significance, challenges, and opportunities. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2011;8:62–72. doi: 10.1007/s11904-010-0063-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types