Centre for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Research (CeSHHAR) Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe
Department of International Public Health, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Jul;6(Suppl 4). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006141.
Reaching men aged 20-35 years, the group at greatest risk of HIV, with voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) remains a challenge. We assessed the impact of two VMMC demand creation approaches targeting this age group in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).
We conducted a 2×2 factorial RCT comparing arms with and without two interventions: (1) standard demand creation augmented by human-centred design (HCD)-informed approach; (2) standard demand creation plus offer of HIV self-testing (HIVST). Interpersonal communication (IPC) agents were the unit of randomisation. We observed implementation of demand creation over 6 months (1 May to 31 October 2018), with number of men circumcised assessed over 7 months. The primary outcome was the number of men circumcised per IPC agent using the as-treated population of actual number of months each IPC agent worked. We conducted a mixed-methods process evaluation within the RCT.
We randomised 140 IPC agents, 35 in each arm. 132/140 (94.3%) attended study training and 105/132 (79.5%) reached at least one client during the trial period and were included in final analysis. There was no evidence that the HCD-informed intervention increased VMMC uptake versus no HCD-informed intervention (incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.02; p=0.75). Nor did offering men a HIVST kit at time of VMMC mobilisation (IRR 0.65, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.50; p=0.31). Among IPC agents that reported reaching at least one man with demand creation, both the HCD-informed intervention and HIVST were deemed useful. There were some challenges with trial implementation; <50% of IPC agents converted any men to VMMC, which undermined our ability to show an effect of demand creation and may reflect acceptability and feasibility of the interventions.
This RCT did not show evidence of an effect of HCD-informed demand intervention or HIVST on VMMC uptake. Findings will inform future design and implementation of demand creation evaluations.
PACTR201804003064160.
为了接触到感染艾滋病毒风险最大的 20-35 岁男性群体,推广自愿男性包皮环切术(VMMC)仍然是一项挑战。我们评估了在一项随机对照试验(RCT)中针对该年龄组的两种 VMMC 需求创造方法的效果。
我们进行了一项 2×2 析因 RCT,比较了有和没有两种干预措施的组:(1)标准需求创造,辅以以人为中心设计(HCD)为指导的方法;(2)标准需求创造加上 HIV 自我检测(HIVST)的提供。人际传播(IPC)人员是随机分组的单位。我们观察了 6 个月(2018 年 5 月 1 日至 10 月 31 日)的需求创造实施情况,并在 7 个月内评估了接受环切术的男性人数。主要结局是每个 IPC 人员实际工作月数的接受治疗人群中,每个 IPC 人员进行的环切术数量。我们在 RCT 中进行了一项混合方法的过程评估。
我们随机分配了 140 名 IPC 人员,每组 35 名。132/140(94.3%)参加了研究培训,在试验期间,有 105/132(79.5%)名 IPC 人员至少接触到一名客户,并纳入最终分析。以人为中心设计干预措施并没有增加 VMMC 的使用率,而没有以人为中心设计干预措施(发病率比(IRR)0.87,95%置信区间(CI)0.38 至 2.02;p=0.75)。在 VMMC 动员时提供男性 HIVST 试剂盒也没有增加(IRR 0.65,95%CI 0.28 至 1.50;p=0.31)。在报告至少接触到一名男性进行需求创造的 IPC 人员中,以人为中心设计干预措施和 HIVST 都被认为是有用的。试验实施存在一些挑战;不到 50%的 IPC 人员将任何男性转化为 VMMC,这削弱了我们展示需求创造效果的能力,这可能反映了干预措施的可接受性和可行性。
这项 RCT 没有证据表明以人为中心设计的需求干预或 HIVST 对 VMMC 的采用有影响。研究结果将为未来的需求创造评估的设计和实施提供信息。
PACTOR201804003064160。