| Literature DB >> 31328419 |
Samuel Ensor1, Bethan Davies1, Tanvi Rai1, Helen Ward1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: UNAIDS has recommended that in 14 countries across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), 90% of men aged 10 to 29 years should be circumcised by 2021 to help reduce transmission of HIV. To achieve this target demand creation programmes have been widely implemented to increase demand for Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC). This review explores the effectiveness of demand creation interventions and factors affecting programme implementation.Entities:
Keywords: Africa South of the Sahara; Circumcision; Male; HIV infections; Health Services Needs and Demand; Programme evaluation; Systematic review
Year: 2019 PMID: 31328419 PMCID: PMC6643070 DOI: 10.1002/jia2.25299
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Int AIDS Soc ISSN: 1758-2652 Impact factor: 5.396
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart.
Summary of studies included in analysis
| Author (date) | Setting (VMMC prevalence) | Population | Study date (F/U months) | Sample size | Study design | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quant | Qual | |||||
| Barnabus (2016) | Rural South Africa & Uganda | Uncircumcised HIV‐negative men aged 16 to 49, with private text‐messaging | Jun 2013 to Mar 2015 (9) | 750 | ‐ | RCT |
| Bazant (2016) | Rural Tanzania (49% to 60%) | Uncircumcised men aged >20 | Nov 2014 to Feb 2015 (3) | 1186 | 72 | Cluster randomized evaluation + FGD |
| Cook (2016) | Urban Zambia | Sub‐group: uncircumcised, HIV negative men aged >18 with female partner | Not presented | 668 | ‐ | CRCT |
| DeCelles (2016) | Urban Zimbabwe | Men aged 18 to 30 playing in football clubs and trial coaches | 2012 to 2013 | ‐ | 46 | IDIs + FGD |
| Downs (2017) | Rural Tanzania (<20%) | Total male population | Jun 2014 to Dec 2015 (7) | 145,028 | ‐ | CRCT + FDG |
| Evens (2016) | Rural & Urban Kenya | Thirumurthy (2014) trial participants | Not presented | ‐ | 64 | IDI |
| Kaufman (2016) | Urban Zimbabwe (>20%) | Male students aged 14 to 20 | Mar to Oct 2014 (4) | 1148 | ‐ | CRCT |
| Leiby (2016) | Urban & peri‐urban Zambia | Uncircumcised male subscribers to national SMS platform aged 15 to 30 | May to Oct 2014 (6) | 1652 | ‐ | RCT |
| Marshall (2017) | Peri‐urban South Africa (57%) | Uncircumcised men | Aug to Nov 2015 (2) | 226 | ‐ | Prospective cohort |
| Montague (2014) | Rural South Africa | HIV‐negative male students aged 11 to 20 at 42 selected high schools | Mar 2011 to Feb 2013 (24) | 11,088 | ‐ | Prospective cohort |
| Miiro (2017) | Peri‐urban Uganda | Uncircumcised male students in Forms 2 and 3 (median age 16 to 17) | Oct to Nov 2015 | ‐ | 10 | IDI |
| Semeere (2016) | Urban Uganda (28%) | Pregnant women with an uncircumcised spouse | May 2014 to Jan 2015 (3) | 601 | 117 | Retrospective pre/post study +IDI |
| Thirumurthy (2014) | Urban & Rural Kenya | Uncircumcised men aged 25 to 49 | Jun 2013 to Feb 2014 (2) | 1502 | ‐ | RCT |
| Thirumurthy (2016) | Urban & Rural Kenya (< 80%) | Uncircumcised men aged 21 to 39 | Apr to Sept 2014 (3) | 911 | ‐ | RCT |
| Thornton (2016) | Urban Malawi (~2%) | Uncircumcised men aged 18 to 30 | 2010 (3) | 1649 | ‐ | RCT |
| Weiss (2015) | Urban Zambia (12%) | Uncircumcised, HIV‐negative men aged >18 with female partners (optional) | Feb 2012 to Oct 2014 (12) | 800 | ‐ | CRCT |
| Wilson (2016) | Peri‐urban South Africa (25.2%) | Men aged >18 | Jun to Aug 2014 (2) | 4000 | ‐ | RCT + FDG |
| Zanolini (2016) | Rural Zambia | Men aged ≥18 | Jun 2014 to Feb 2015 (5) | N/A | ‐ | Time series (amended RCT) |
ART, anti‐retroviral therapy; CRCT, Cluster randomized control trial; F/U, follow‐up; FGD, focus group discussion; IDI, individual in‐depth interviews; MTC, “Make the cut;” Quant, quantitative; Qual, qualitative; RCT, randomized control trial; VMMC, voluntary medical male circumcision.
aContain data from same study; bboth contain data from MTC+ study. DeCelles (2016) also contains data from separate MTC study; ccontain data from same study.
Quantitative study design and results
| Author | Intervention | Control/comparator | Outcome measure | Descriptive data | Absolute change in VMMC uptake (intervention minus control) | Relative change/Effect size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barnabus | Standard of care + randomized to mobile phone SMS reminders or home visits to promote service linkage | Counselling about VMMC, referral card to local circumcision facilities | VMMC uptake (three months) |
Control: 62/224 (27%) |
|
|
| Bazant | Control + invite to weekly lottery (for smartphone worth $85.60) after VMMC | Mass media messages and peer‐promotor conversations | Change in number of VMMCs compared to previous year |
Control 8% ↑ | 39% ↑ (NS) | Not presented |
| Cook | Spear and shield: for men see Weiss (2015). Female partners received four separate weekly group education sessions + $6/visit | For men see Weiss (2015). Female partners: four video‐based health education group sessions + $6/visit | Likelihood of VMMC uptake |
Control: 69/328 (20.9%) |
|
|
| Downs | Day of training for church leaders + follow up group or individual discussions every two weeks | Standard outreach | % of population attending for VMMC |
Control: 25,484/86,492 (29.5%) |
|
|
| Kaufman | “MTC+”: football‐based group education session (one hour) by trained facilitator + contact for further group meetings + transport to VMMC + non‐monetary incentive worth $5 | Usual care | % VMMC uptake in uncircumcised at baseline |
Control: 17/371 (4.6%) |
|
|
| Leiby | Conventional or tailored set of 21 SMS test messages about VMMC | Routine access to SMS service to engage counsellors on any topic | Self‐reported VMMC uptake |
Control: 57/771 (7.4%) |
1.2% (−1.5 to 3.9) |
AOR |
| Marshall | Three individual motivational interviews and $17 post‐VMMC | Baseline circumcision prevalence | Circumcision prevalence |
Baseline: 296/522 (56.7%, (52.4% to 60.9%)) |
| |
| Montague | Community engagement + in‐school VMMC awareness sessions + peer recruitment + travel to clinic | 70% prevalence target | # of VMMCs performed | 5165/11,088 (47% prevalence) | No baseline data presented | |
| Semeere | Education on VMMC + communication skills training for women + transport voucher ($8.50) redeemed after VMMC | Standard care + $8.50 transport voucher for men undergoing VMMC | % of women whose spouse had VMMC by one month |
Control: 4/296 (1.4%) | 0.9% (−1.2 to 3.1) | OR 1.5 (0.4 to 5.2) |
| Thirumurthy (2014) | Food vouchers for $2.50, $8.75 or $15 after VMMC | Information about nine clinics providing free VMMC | % VMMC uptake |
Control: 6/370 (1.6%) |
0.3% (−1.6 to 2.1) |
AOR |
| Thirumurthy (2016) | Food voucher for $12.50 or entry into lottery (expected values $12.50) after VMMC | Information about free VMMC clinics + $0.6 voucher after VMMC | % VMMC uptake |
Control: 4/299 (1.3%) |
|
|
| Thornton | Voucher subsidized VMMC (cost $0‐$6) | Free VMMC | % VMMC uptake |
>$0: 30/1257 (2.39%) | 0.7% (−1.2 to 2.6) | OR |
| Weiss | “Spear and shield”:4 weekly 90‐ minute group education sessions + $6 per assessment | 4 weekly 90‐minute video‐based group education sessions on endemic diseases + $6 | Likelihood of VMMC uptake |
Control: 96/400 (24%) |
|
|
| Wilson | Control postcards + offer of $10 to attend for counselling, challenge message or novel VMMC information | Postcards with routine VMMC information + clinic details | # of VMMCs |
Overall 74/4000 men returned postcards |
| |
| Zanolini (2016) | Clients undergoing VMMC asked to refer ≤5 uncircumcised men, paid $2/referral | Comparison with 2012 health data rends trends from non‐intervention facilities | Mean monthly difference in # of VMMCs |
Control: not presented | Mean monthly difference 7.6 VMMCs (−20.4 to 40.8) | Adjusted mean monthly difference 10.2 (−18.3 to 33.9) |
Statistically significant effect sizes are shown in bold.AOR, Adjusted odds ratio; CRCT, cluster randomized control trial; M, men; MTC, “Make the Cut;” F/U, follow‐up; NS, Non‐significant; OR, Odds ratio; RCT, randomized control trial; RR, Relative risk; VMMC, Voluntary medical male circumcision; W, women.
aOR and CIs calculated by SE/BD; badjusted for intention level, adulthood, district, circumcised family members, high‐uptake tribe, number of surveys to which individual responded, and verifiability. effect size calculated after loss to follow up; cadjusted for age, educational attainment, marital status and wealth; dadjusted for age, education level and baseline stage of readiness for voluntary medical male circumcision.
Qualitative study designs and results
| Author | Study design | Intervention | Main aim and outcomes for qualitative study | Key findings from qualitative study | Authors’ conclusion | Strengths and limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bazant (2016) | Focus groups with sub‐set of clients who had undergone circumcision and peer educators as part of randomized evaluation of lottery | Entry into weekly lottery for smartphone worth $85.60 conditional on becoming circumcised | Preferences for VMMC incentives |
The lottery created interest in VMMC – “a buzz” Suspicion about the phone incentive which was too high in value Preference for an incentive for all (rather than lottery) Mixed views, but preference for money as reimbursement (rather than phone) | The lottery might work at some stages of a programme, e.g. late adopters, but not when need wide uptake | Little detail on method to assess quality, e.g. what was asked in focus groups. No data from those who did not seek VMMC |
| Evens (2016) |
In depth interviews with circumcised and uncircumcised men and female partners as part of RCT of financial compensation. | Food vouchers of varying amounts conditional on becoming circumcised | Perceptions of how compensation provision influenced decisions about circumcision |
Loss of income is a significant barrier to circumcision and the financial compensation programme helped motivate men in three ways: (a) removed the financial barrier, without the money they would not have been circumcised; (b) the money prompted it in men who had already decided to be circumcise, i.e. it was a “nudge;” (c) it was the information that prompted them, the money was a bonus only Those who did not get circumcised cited (a) the compensation was insufficient; (b) a primary reason other than finance (e.g. not discussed it with female partner, fear of pain); (c) they felt the decision should not be linked to compensation Female partners were supportive of decisions, but thought the compensation was insufficient There was no evidence that economic compensation was perceived as being coercive | Financial compensation can be an important tool in increasing circumcision uptake, but the amount needs to be carefully judged, and other barriers, notably fear of pain, also need to be addressed | Relatively small sample size but included both circumcised and uncircumcised men and their female partners. Methods are clearly described |
| DeCelles (2016) | A process evaluation with in depth interviews and focus groups with soccer coaches, circumcised and uncircumcised men linked to RCT | Soccer‐themed educational session and follow‐up to promote circumcision | Perceptions of programme impact, intervention components and delivery; understanding of intervention content; factors related to uptake |
Coaches’ individual stories were helpful in sharing knowledge about circumcision and in motivating boys and men, with the coach‐participant relationship being particularly valued and trusted Older men were less likely to be convinced that it was relevant to them Follow‐up texts and coaches accompanying participants to the clinic were highly valued by some | The programme was acceptable, the quality of the coach‐participant relationship was highly valued, particularly discussion of personal experience | Small sample size particularly in MTC |
| Miiro (2017) | Mixed methods: cross sectional survey and in‐depth interviews with male school students associated with feasibility study in Uganda | Soccer‐themed educational session and follow‐up to promote circumcision | Acceptability, feasibility and perceptions of implementation of a soccer‐based intervention among schoolboys |
General favourable towards circumcision and good acceptability in principle Feasibility study showed need for further engagement with parents and school to improve uptake Interviews showed importance of family and peer support in preparing participants for circumcision Sessions with the coaches were found to prompt decision in those who were already receptive, helped by their personal experience of the procedure and individual follow‐up after The main reasons for getting circumcised were hygiene and reduced HIV risk, while main reasons against were fear of pain, loss of contact with the coach or family opposition | The intervention can be adapted and effective but needs to attend to the key role of family and peer support, and to address practical issues of timing and delivery through schools | A small feasibility study, but able to identify some key factors that could help improve implementation of MTC in a new setting |
| Semeere (2016) | Nested interview study as part of quasi‐experimental behaviour change intervention study. Interviews with women, men and key informants. | Education for pregnant women to encourage them to refer their male partners for circumcision | Evaluation of the causal chain of the intervention including women's perceptions of benefits of circumcisions, and how the information may have affected men's decisions |
After the intervention, women had a high level of discomfort about talking to their partners about circumcision but they mostly still delivered the messages Men who did get circumcised after the intervention reported already contemplating it, and the conversation with their partner plus the transport voucher acted as a catalyst For the men who did not get circumcised, they and their partners cited well established barriers including lost wages, pain and religious/cultural reasons | Interventions using female partners are feasible but further work is needed to develop this | A pilot study with short follow‐up (three months), but was able to seek views of women, men and key informants |
| Downs (2017) | Focus groups with church leaders, nested in a community cluster randomized trial | Education of religious leaders who were then left to decide how to address circumcision in their community | Attitudes of religious leaders to male circumcision |
There was considerable misinformation about and suspicion of circumcision among church leaders, and they would welcome more education (control villages) The intervention empowered church leaders and they reported high levels of acceptance among their communities (intervention villages) Church leaders recognized their strong influence felt they could be effective in promoting circumcision (all villages) | Working through religious leaders is an innovative model to promote healthy behaviour, addressing structural and cultural factors in a locally acceptable way | The large trial demonstrated impact. Focus groups with leaders but no qualitative data from participants |