Efficacy of peer-led interventions to reduce unprotected anal intercourse among men who have sex with men: A meta-analysis

29Citations
Citations of this article
90Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of peer-led interventions in reducing unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) among men who have sex with men (MSM). Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, pre- and post-intervention studies without control groups, and serial cross-sectional assessments involving peers delivering interventions among MSM and published as of February 2012 were identified by systematically searching 13 electronic databases and cross-referencing. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated as the changes of standardized mean difference (SMD) in UAI between groups or pre-post intervention. Results: A total of 22 studies met the eligibility criteria, including five RCTs, six quasi-experimental studies, six pre-and-post intervention studies, and five serial cross-sectional intervention studies. We used 15 individual studies including 17 interventions for overall ES calculation; peer-led interventions reduced UAI with any sexual partners in meta-analysis (mean ES: -0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.41, -0.13; P<0.01). Subgroup analyses demonstrated a statistically significant reduction on UAI in quasi-experimental studies (mean ES: 2 0.30; 95% CI: -0.50, -0.09; P = 0.01) and serial cross-sectional intervention studies (mean ES: -0.33; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.09; P = 0.01), but non-significant reduction in RCTs (mean ES: -0.15; 95% CI: -0.36, 0.07; P = 0.18) or pre- and post-intervention studies (mean ES: -0.29; 95% CI: -0.69, 0.11; P = 0.15). Heterogeneity was large across these 15 studies (I2 = 77.5%; P, 0.01), largely due to pre-and-post intervention studies and serial cross-sectional intervention studies. Conclusions: Peer-led HIV prevention interventions reduced the overall UAI among MSM, but the efficacy varied by study design. More RCTs are needed to evaluate the effect of peer-led interventions while minimizing potential bias. © 2014 Ye et al.

Figures

  • Figure 1. Flowchart of literature search and selection of studies.
  • Figure 2. Forest plot of the effect sizes of peer-led interventions on change of unprotected anal intercourse among MSM in 15 studies (17 interventions).
  • Figure 3. Funnel plot of 15 studies (17 interventions) for assessing publication bias. X-axis (horizontal) for the effect size or standard difference in means; y-axis (vertical) for the standard error of effect size.
  • Table 3. Subgroup meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses of UAI with any sexual partners.
  • Table 3. Cont.

References Powered by Scopus

32990Citations
4695Readers

This article is free to access.

4217Citations
1768Readers

Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments

1478Citations
750Readers

Your institution provides access to this article.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ye, S., Yin, L., Amico, K. R., Simoni, J. M., Vermund, S. H., Ruan, Y., … Qian, H. Z. (2014). Efficacy of peer-led interventions to reduce unprotected anal intercourse among men who have sex with men: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090788

Readers over time

‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2505101520

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 44

71%

Researcher 12

19%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

6%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 20

35%

Nursing and Health Professions 16

28%

Medicine and Dentistry 15

26%

Psychology 6

11%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0