Social cognitive theory for promotion of condom use vs no intervention: Consistent application of condom by FSWs
Social cognitive theory for promotion of condom use showed no clear difference in consistent application of condom by FSWs compared with no intervention (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Social cognitive theory for promotion of condom use vs no intervention Consistent application of condom by FSWs · sex workers Social cognitive theory for promotion of condom use showed no clear difference in consistent application of condom by FSWs compared with no intervention (moderate certainty). Behavioral interventions to reduce the transmission of HIV infection among sex workers and their clients in… (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.65 [0.23, 1.85] | 1 study · 98 participants | Moderate |
Social cognitive theory for promotion of condom use vs no intervention Consistent condom use by FSWs with clients in the past 7‐day · sex workers Social cognitive theory for promotion of condom use showed no clear difference in consistent condom use by FSWs with clients in the past 7‐day compared with no intervention (moderate certainty). Behavioral interventions to reduce the transmission of HIV infection among sex workers and their clients in… (2012) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.92 [0.68, 1.24] | 1 study · 98 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Behavioral interventions to reduce the transmission of HIV infection among sex workers and their clients in low‐ and middle‐income countries 2012 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.