Fonner Virginia A, Denison Julie, Kennedy Caitlin E, O'Reilly Kevin, Sweat Michael
Department of International Health, Social and Behavioral Interventions Program, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12;2012(9):CD001224. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001224.pub4.
Voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) continues to play a critical role in HIV prevention, care and treatment. In recent years, different modalities of VCT have been implemented, including clinic-, mobile- and home-based testing and counseling. This review assesses the effects of all VCT types on HIV-related risk behaviors in low- and middle-income countries.
The primary objective of this review is to systematically review the literature examining the efficacy of VCT in changing HIV-related risk behaviors in developing countries across various populations.
Five electronic databases - PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) - were searched using predetermined key words and phrases. Hand-searching was conducted in four key journals including AIDS, AIDS and Behavior, AIDS Education and Prevention, and AIDS Care; the tables of contents of these four journals during the included time period were individually screened for relevant articles. The reference lists of all articles included in the review were screened to identify any additional studies; this process was iterated until no additional articles were found.
To be included in the review, eligible studies had to meet the following inclusion criteria: 1) Take place in a low- or middle-income country as defined by the World Bank, 2) Published in a peer-reviewed journal between January 1, 1990 and July 6, 2010, 3) Involve client-initiated VCT, including pre-test counseling, HIV-testing, and post-test counseling, and 4) Use a pre/post or multi-arm design that compares individuals before and after receiving VCT or individuals who received VCT to those who did not, and 5) Report results pertaining to behavioral, psychological, biological, or social HIV-related outcomes.
All citations were initially screened and all relevant citations were independently screened by two reviewers to assess eligibility. For all included studies data were extracted by two team members working independently using a standardized form. Differences were resolved through consensus or discussion with the study coordinator when necessary. Study rigor was assessed using an eight point quality score and through the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Outcomes comparable across studies, including condom use and number of sex partners, were meta-analyzed using random effects models. With respect to both meta-analyses, data were included from multi-arm studies and from pre/post studies if adequate data were provided. Other outcomes, including HIV-incidence, STI incidence/prevalence, and positive and negative life events were synthesized qualitatively. For meta-analysis, all outcomes were converted to the standard metric of the odds ratio. If an outcome could not be converted to an odds ratio, the study was excluded from analysis.
An initial search yielded 2808 citations. After excluding studies failing to meet the inclusion criteria, 19 were deemed eligible for inclusion. Of these studies, two presented duplicate data and were removed. The remaining 17 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and 8 studies were meta-analyzed. Twelve studies offered clinic-based VCT, 3 were employment-based, 1 involved mobile VCT, and 1 provided home-based VCT. In meta-analysis, the odds of reporting increased number of sexual partners were reduced when comparing participants who received VCT to those who did not, unadjusted random effects pooled OR= 0.69 (95% CI: 0.53-0.90, p=0.007). When stratified by serostatus, these results only remained significant for those who tested HIV-positive. There was an insignificant increase in the odds of condom use/protected sex among participants who received VCT compared to those who did not, unadjusted random effects pooled OR=1.39 (95% CI: 0.97-1.99, p=0.076). When stratified by HIV status, this effect became significant among HIV-positive participants, random effects pooled OR= 3.24 (95% CI: 2.29-4.58, p<0.001).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: These findings add to growing evidence that VCT can change HIV-related sexual risk behaviors thereby reducing HIV-related risk, and confirming its importance as an HIV prevention strategy. To maximize the effectiveness of VCT, more studies should be conducted to understand which modalities and counseling strategies produce significant reductions in risky behaviors and lead to the greatest uptake of VCT.
自愿咨询检测(VCT)在艾滋病毒预防、护理和治疗中继续发挥关键作用。近年来,已实施了不同形式的VCT,包括诊所检测咨询、流动检测咨询和上门检测咨询。本综述评估了所有类型的VCT对低收入和中等收入国家艾滋病毒相关风险行为的影响。
本综述的主要目的是系统回顾文献,以检验VCT在发展中国家不同人群中改变艾滋病毒相关风险行为的效果。
使用预先确定的关键词和短语检索了五个电子数据库——医学期刊数据库(PubMed)、医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)、心理学文摘数据库(PsycINFO)、社会学文摘数据库和护理及相关健康文献累积索引数据库(CINAHL)。在包括《艾滋病》《艾滋病与行为》《艾滋病教育与预防》和《艾滋病护理》在内的四种主要期刊上进行了手工检索;对这四种期刊在纳入时间段内的目录分别进行筛选,以查找相关文章。对综述中纳入的所有文章的参考文献列表进行筛选,以确定任何其他研究;重复此过程,直到没有发现其他文章为止。
要纳入本综述,符合条件的研究必须满足以下入选标准:1)在世界银行定义的低收入或中等收入国家进行;2)在1990年1月1日至2010年7月6日期间发表在同行评审期刊上;3)涉及由服务对象主动寻求的VCT,包括检测前咨询、艾滋病毒检测和检测后咨询;4)采用前后对照或多组设计,比较接受VCT前后的个体或接受VCT的个体与未接受VCT的个体;5)报告与艾滋病毒相关的行为、心理、生物学或社会结果。
所有文献最初都经过筛选,所有相关文献由两名评审员独立筛选以评估其是否符合入选标准。对于所有纳入的研究,由两名团队成员独立使用标准化表格提取数据。如有分歧,必要时通过与研究协调员协商或讨论解决。使用八分质量评分并通过Cochrane协作网的偏倚风险评估工具评估研究的严谨性。对各研究中可比的结果,包括安全套使用情况和性伴侣数量,使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。对于这两项荟萃分析,如果提供了足够的数据,则纳入多组研究和前后对照研究的数据。其他结果,包括艾滋病毒发病率、性传播感染发病率/患病率以及积极和消极生活事件,则进行定性综合分析。对于荟萃分析,所有结果均转换为优势比的标准指标。如果某个结果无法转换为优势比,则将该研究排除在分析之外。
初步检索得到2808篇文献。在排除不符合入选标准的研究后,19项研究被认为符合纳入条件。在这些研究中,有两项呈现了重复数据并被剔除。其余17项研究纳入定性综合分析,8项研究进行了荟萃分析。12项研究提供了基于诊所的VCT,3项基于就业场所,1项涉及流动VCT,1项提供上门VCT。在荟萃分析中,与未接受VCT的参与者相比,接受VCT的参与者报告性伴侣数量增加的几率降低,未调整的随机效应合并优势比=0.69(95%置信区间:0.53 - 0.90,p = 0.007)。按血清学状态分层时,这些结果仅在艾滋病毒检测呈阳性者中仍然显著。与未接受VCT的参与者相比,接受VCT的参与者使用安全套/采取安全性行为的几率有不显著的增加,未调整的随机效应合并优势比=1.39(95%置信区间:0.97 - 1.99,p = 0.076)。按艾滋病毒状态分层时,这种效应在艾滋病毒阳性参与者中变得显著,随机效应合并优势比=3.24(95%置信区间:2.29 - 4.58,p < 0.001)。
这些发现进一步证明了VCT可以改变与艾滋病毒相关的性风险行为,从而降低与艾滋病毒相关的风险,并证实了其作为艾滋病毒预防策略的重要性。为了使VCT的效果最大化,应开展更多研究,以了解哪些形式和咨询策略能显著减少危险行为并促使更多人接受VCT。