Shangani Sylvia, Escudero Daniel, Kirwa Kipruto, Harrison Abigail, Marshall Brandon, Operario Don
a Department of Behavioural and Social Sciences , Brown University, School of Public Health , Providencike , USA.
b School of Public Health , Moi University , Eldoret , Kenya.
AIDS Care. 2017 Aug;29(8):1003-1013. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2017.1282105. Epub 2017 Feb 2.
HIV testing constitutes a key step along the continuum of HIV care. Men who have sex with men (MSM) have low HIV testing rates and delayed diagnosis, especially in low-resource settings. Peer-led interventions offer a strategy to increase testing rates in this population. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes evidence on the effectiveness of peer-led interventions to increase the uptake of HIV testing among MSM. Using a systematic review protocol that was developed a priori, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL for articles reporting original results of randomized or non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental interventions, and pre- and post-intervention studies. Studies were eligible if they targeted MSM and utilized peers to increase HIV testing. We included studies published in or after 1996 to focus on HIV testing during the era of combination antiretroviral therapy. Seven studies encompassing a total of 6205 participants met eligibility criteria, including two quasi-experimental studies, four non-randomized pre- and-post intervention studies, and one cluster randomized trial. Four studies were from high-income countries, two were from Asia and only one from sub-Saharan Africa. We assigned four studies a "moderate" methodological rigor rating and three a "strong" rating. Meta-analysis of the seven studies found HIV testing rates were statistically significantly higher in the peer-led intervention groups versus control groups (pooled OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.74-2.31). Among randomized trials, HIV testing rates were significantly higher in the peer-led intervention versus control groups (pooled OR: 2.48, 95% CI 1.99-3.08). Among the non-randomized pre- and post-intervention studies, the overall pooled OR for intervention versus control groups was 1.71 (95% CI 1.42-2.06), with substantial heterogeneity among studies (I= 70%, p < 0.02). Overall, peer-led interventions increased HIV testing among MSM but more data from high-quality studies are needed to evaluate effects of peer-led interventions on HIV testing among MSM in low- and middle-income countries.
艾滋病毒检测是艾滋病毒护理连续过程中的关键一步。男男性行为者(MSM)的艾滋病毒检测率较低且诊断延迟,尤其是在资源匮乏地区。同伴主导的干预措施提供了一种提高该人群检测率的策略。本系统评价和荟萃分析总结了关于同伴主导的干预措施在提高男男性行为者艾滋病毒检测接受率方面有效性的证据。我们使用事先制定的系统评价方案,在PubMed、PsycINFO和CINAHL数据库中检索报告随机或非随机对照试验(RCT)、准实验干预以及干预前后研究原始结果的文章。如果研究针对男男性行为者并利用同伴来增加艾滋病毒检测,则这些研究符合纳入标准。我们纳入了1996年及以后发表的研究,以关注联合抗逆转录病毒治疗时代的艾滋病毒检测情况。七项研究共纳入6205名参与者,符合纳入标准,其中包括两项准实验研究、四项非随机干预前后研究和一项整群随机试验。四项研究来自高收入国家,两项来自亚洲,只有一项来自撒哈拉以南非洲。我们将四项研究的方法学严谨性评为“中等”,三项评为“强”。对这七项研究的荟萃分析发现,同伴主导的干预组的艾滋病毒检测率在统计学上显著高于对照组(合并比值比2.00,95%置信区间1.74 - 2.31)。在随机试验中,同伴主导的干预组的艾滋病毒检测率显著高于对照组(合并比值比:2.48,95%置信区间为1.99 - 3.08)。在非随机干预前后研究中,干预组与对照组的总体合并比值比为1.71(95%置信区间1.42 - 2.06),各研究之间存在显著异质性(I = 70%,p < 0.02)。总体而言,同伴主导的干预措施提高了男男性行为者的艾滋病毒检测率,但需要更多高质量研究的数据来评估同伴主导的干预措施对低收入和中等收入国家男男性行为者艾滋病毒检测的影响。