Cochrane · systematic review · CD005272
Behavioral interventions to reduce the transmission of HIV infection among sex workers and their clients in low‐ and middle‐income countries
Wariki, WMV, Ota, E, Mori, R, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2012 · Cochrane Library
HIV/AIDSAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
27
current version
GRADE rated
27
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 9 · 33.3%Low 4 · 14.8%Moderate 9 · 33.3%High 5 · 18.5%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Social cognitive theory compared to standard counseling for promotion of condom use
Population: sex workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
HIV incidence among FSWs at 6‐month Social cognitive theory vs standard counseling | RR 0.12 [0.01, 2.22] | 1 study · 709 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Syphilis incidence among FSWs at 6‐month Social cognitive theory vs standard counseling | RR 0.46 [0.18, 1.19] | 1 study · 709 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Gonorrhoea incidence among FSWs at 6‐month Social cognitive theory vs standard counseling | RR 0.69 [0.3, 1.58] | 1 study · 709 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Any STIs incidence among FSWs at 6‐month Social cognitive theory vs standard counseling | RR 0.57 [0.34, 0.96] | 1 study · 709 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Consistent condom use by FSWs at 6‐month Social cognitive theory vs standard counseling | RR 1.14 [1.07, 1.21] | 2 studies · 804 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Drug use among FSWs at 6‐month Social cognitive theory vs standard counseling | RR 0.65 [0.36, 1.16] | 2 studies · 772 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Alcohol use among FSWs at 6‐month Social cognitive theory vs standard counseling | RR 0.68 [0.46, 1] | 2 studies · 772 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Social cognitive theory for promotion of condom use compared to no intervention
Population: sex workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Consistent condom use by FSWs with clients at 6‐month Social cognitive theory for promotion of condom use vs no intervention | RR 0.89 [0.61, 1.3] | 1 study · 98 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Consistent condom use by FSWs with clients in the past 7‐day Social cognitive theory for promotion of condom use vs no intervention | RR 0.92 [0.68, 1.24] | 1 study · 98 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Consistent application of condom by FSWs Social cognitive theory for promotion of condom use vs no intervention | RR 0.65 [0.23, 1.85] | 1 study · 98 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
HIV knowledge among FSWs at 6‐month Social cognitive theory for promotion of condom use vs no intervention | RR 2.08 [0.4, 10.85] | 1 study · 98 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Psychosocial barriers to condom use among FSWs at 6‐month Social cognitive theory for promotion of condom use vs no intervention | RR 0.83 [0.36, 1.93] | 1 study · 98 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Psychosocial barriers to condom use self‐efficacy among FSWs at 6‐month Social cognitive theory for promotion of condom use vs no intervention | RR 1.56 [0.85, 2.89] | 1 study · 98 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Promotion of female and male condom compared to promotion of male condom
Population: sex workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
HIV incidence among FSWs at 3‐month Promotion of female and male condom vs promotion of male condom | RR 0.07 [0, 1.38] | 1 study · 149 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Chlamydia incidence among FSWs at 3‐month Promotion of female and male condom vs promotion of male condom | RR 0.71 [0.52, 0.98] | 1 study · 504 participants | High |
Gonorrhoea incidence among FSWs at 3‐month Promotion of female and male condom vs promotion of male condom | RR 0.63 [0.45, 0.88] | 1 study · 504 participants | High |
Consistent male condom use at 3‐month Promotion of female and male condom vs promotion of male condom | RR 0.88 [0.83, 0.92] | 2 studies · 572 participants | High |
Consistent female condom use by FSWs at 3‐month Promotion of female and male condom vs promotion of male condom | RR 0.12 [0.09, 0.17] | 2 studies · 564 participants | High |
Consistent female condom use by FSWs at 24‐month Promotion of female and male condom vs promotion of male condom | RR 0.15 [0.09, 0.28] | 1 study · 128 participants | High |
Consistent male condom use at 24‐month Promotion of female and male condom vs promotion of male condom | RR 0.91 [0.82, 1.02] | 1 study · 128 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
VCT compared to standard care of STI for increasing condom use
Population: sex workers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Syphilis prevalence among FSWs at 6‐month VCT vs standard care of STI | RR 0.52 [0.23, 1.18] | 1 study · 278 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Gonorrhoea prevalence among FSWs at 6‐month VCT vs standard care of STI | RR 0.83 [0.4, 1.74] | 1 study · 278 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Chlamydia prevalence among FSWs at 6‐month VCT vs standard care of STI | RR 0.67 [0.4, 1.13] | 1 study · 278 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Trichomonas prevalence among FSWs at 6‐month VCT vs standard care of STI | RR 0.52 [0.23, 1.18] | 1 study · 278 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Genital warts prevalence among FSWs at 6‐month VCT vs standard care of STI | RR 0.22 [0.05, 0.98] | 1 study · 278 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Consistent condom use by FSWs with clients at 6‐month VCT vs standard care of STI | RR 2.05 [1.48, 2.85] | 1 study · 278 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
HIV/STI knowledge among FSWs at 6‐month VCT vs standard care of STI | RR 1.28 [0.81, 2.04] | 1 study · 278 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |