| Literature DB >> 33559070 |
Hanxi Zhang1, Qing Yu2, Zheng Li1, Xiangfei Xiu1, Fan Lv1, Mengjie Han1, Lu Wang3.
Abstract
People living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH) may be vulnerable to mental illness. As sexual transmission is the leading cause of HIV infection, evidence-based study for the effect of psychological interventions on the change of sexual is needed. To estimate the efficacy of psychological interventions towards reducing unprotected sex and increasing condom use among PLWH. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE (OVID), and PsycINFO (OVID) for studies reporting psychological intervention effects on the outcomes of condom use and/or unprotected sex from 2010 to 2020. This review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020193640. Of 949 studies, 17 studies were included in this systematic review. Overall, participants in the intervention group reduced sexual risk or condomless sex relative to control groups. The effect was higher for people having sex with HIV-positive partners comparing with those who had sex with HIV-negative or unknown status partners. Psychological interventions might positively affect the condom use of PLWH and should be prioritized and regularly.Entities:
Keywords: Behavior; Condom use; HIV; Meta-analysis; PLWH; Psychological interventions
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33559070 PMCID: PMC7869767 DOI: 10.1007/s10461-021-03181-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AIDS Behav ISSN: 1090-7165
Fig. 1Flow chart showing the search and study selection process for literature
Descriptions of included studies
| Authors, publication year | Location | Participants | Theoretical basis | Intervention | Follow-up time | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Klein CH et al. 2013 [ | USA | HIV-positive African-American women | Session 1: Change what you think, change what you do; Session 2: Risk reduction, condoms and relationships; Session 3: Risk reduction and condom management; Session 4: Building healthy relationships, and it’s your turn, in which participants practice being peer educators | 3-month | Behavioral outcomes: (1) Percentage of condom protected vaginal and anal intercourse, (2) 100% condom use for vaginal and anal sex Condom use frequencies were calculated based on self-reported sexual behavior in the past 30 days | |
| Cruess DG et al. 2018 [ | Unclear | HIV-positive Gay or bisexual | IMB model | Session1: Group facilitators and group members introduced themselves; Session2: The facilitators reviewed the assignment on deception from the previous session, and introduced the topic of HIV status disclosure with partners met online Session3: Discussion began with the assignment on sero status disclosure from the previous session Session4: Discussed their experiences with the condom negotiation assignment from the previous session | 6-month | Self-reported total number of male sex partners during the past 6 months: including partner sero status (HIV-positive vs. HIV-negative/unknown) and the number of times they had CAS with partners in each sero status category |
| Parsons JT et al. 2017 [ | Unclear | HIV-positive Gay and bisexual men | Unified Protocol for Trans diagnostic Treatment of Emotional Disorders (UP), consisted of the following 5 core treatment modules: (1) Mindful emotion awareness, (2) cognitive flexibility, (3) identifying and preventing patterns of emotion avoidance, (4) increasing awareness and tolerance of emotion-related physical sensations, and (5) interoceptive and situational emotion-focused exposures The 5 core modules are preceded by a module focused on enhancing motivation as well as an introductory module on the adaptive nature of emotions that provides a framework for understanding emotional experiences | 3-month | Emotion regulation; Symptoms of Sexual Compulsity; HIV transmission risk behavior | |
| Poudel KC et al. 2015 [ | Kathmandu Valley, Nepal | HIV-positive | Protection Motivation Theory, Social Cognitive Theory | Session 1: emphasized skill development to cope with HIV-related stressors Session 2: focused on participants’ knowledge of HIV; the possibility of HIV co-infection and super infection; and the consequences of having HIV co-infection, super infection, or other STIs among HIV-positive individuals Session 3: designed to enhance participants’ knowledge of HIV transmission risk behaviors and addressed common myths about HIV/STI prevention among HIV-positive persons Session 4: focused on the importance of condom use in preventing pregnancy and transmission of HIV and other STIs Session 5: reinforced the benefits of consistent condom use among HIV-positive persons and the participants conducted role-play to improve safer sex negotiation skills with various partners | Post-intervention | Condom use intention |
| Jones DL et al. 2017 [ | Urban South Florida | Perinatally infected or behaviorally infected with HIV | MI | Session 1: expressing empathy, identifying positive elements of target behaviors, discussing discrepancies between current behavior and goals, supporting positive behavior, promoting decision making, goal setting, exploring ambivalence and using change talk and reflecting Session 2: focused on fertility desires, a plan for safer conception or selection of an appropriate contraceptive based on their own plan, and initiation of preconception communication with their provider | Post-intervention, 6-month | Condom use proportion |
| Williams M et al. 2012 [ | Unclear | Heterosexual African American crack cocaine users living with HIV infection | Social cognitive theory | The (positive choice intervention) PCI was composed of six, 60 mins mixed gender group sessions Session 1: Effects of antiretroviral medications, the risks and consequences of HIV/STD infection/reinfection, HIV transmission to sex partners, and risks when both sex partners are HIV-positive Session 2:explored ways to make sex with a condom pleasurable and fun, and strategies for negotiating condom use with a reluctant partner Session 3: examined disclosing HIV status to all sex partners and how to talk with partners about HIV and condom use Session 4: devoted to assessing personal sexual rights, sexual diversity, the need for intimacy, and positive sexual choices Session 5: A forum for examining gender role and relationship expectations, sexual scripts, and achieving sexual pleasure without vaginal sex Session 6: reviewed intervention topics and invited participants to discuss any intervention topic interesting to them | 3, 9-month | Frequency of sex, number of sex partners, and consistent condom use in the past 30 days |
| Lovejoy TI et al. 2014 [ | Eastern and Midwestern United States | HIV-positive late middle-age and older adults | Trans theoretical model and IMB | The 4-Session Tele-MI: Session 1 focused on ascertaining the client’s current relationship and sexual dynamics Session 2, therapists discussed the client’s concurrent sexual relationships If not addressed in an earlier session, Session 3 focused on the identification of barriers to engaging in protected sex and the development of a client-generated sexual behavior change plan Session 4, the client and therapist discussed the client’s progress toward implementing the change plan and made plan modifications as needed The 1-Session Tele-MI: therapists focused on the most high-risk behavior for clients who had multiple risky behaviors and/or sexual partnerships and only discussed secondary behaviors and concurrent sexual partnerships | 3, 6-month | Sexual behaviors, depression symptoms |
| Hart TA et al. 2016 [ | Toronto | HIV-positive MSM | IMB, motivational interviewing, self-directed behavioral skills practice | (a) Basics of HIV transmission and pathogenesis; HIV-status disclosure skills; (b) Negotiation of safer sex practices; (c) Exploration of non-penetrative sex alternatives; (d) Experimentation with a variety of condoms to enhance the condom-wearing experience | Post-intervention, 3-month | Sexual behavior. Participants reported the total number of male sexual partners |
| El-Bassel N et al. 2010 [ | Atlanta; Los Angeles; New York; Philadelphia | African American HIV discordant couples | Social cognitive theory, relationship-oriented ecological framework | Session1: provide information about STDs, HIV, and safer sex practices; Session2: Enhancing Couple Communication Session3: Safer sex methods; Session4: Discussed other issues (e.g., use of alcohol or drugs) in their relationship that may have affected their sexual risk-taking behaviors; Session5: Practicing the FENCE techniques to problem solve barriers to safer sex and learning to identify and build social networks that promote safer sex | Post intervention, 6, 12-month | Couple’s reported proportion of condom-protected intercourse acts in the past 90 days |
| Mashaphu S et al. 2020 [ | Durban, South Africa | HIV discordant couples | Social cognitive theory, relationship-oriented ecological framework | Session1: Provide information about STDs, HIV, and safer sex practices; Session2: Enhancing couple communication Session3: Safer sex methods; Session4: Discussed other issues in their relationship that may have affected their sexual risk-taking behaviors; Session5: Practicing the FENCE techniques to problem solve barriers to safer sex; and learning to identify and build social networks that promote safer sex | 3, 6-month | Condom use; concurrent partners. Biological outcomes |
| Hightow-Weidman LB et al. 2019 [ | Unclear | Young black HIV-positive MSM | Integrated behavioral model (IBM) | The mobile phone and internet-based HIV intervention Interactive features within the intervention include: Forums for discussion of relevant topics, such as HIV prevention and treatment, dealing with stigma, safer sex behaviors and relationships; A space to upload and share personal videos, audio, pictures or prose (Getting Real); the availability of an online doctor who would respond to questions within 72-h; Decision support tools (e.g. brief surveys, with feedback and referral to prevention services based on results, HIV testing and care locators) for assessing and addressing risk behaviors | 3,6,12-month | Sexual risk behaviors; Detectable viral load; Psychosocial variables |
| Kalichman SC et al. 2018 [ | Atlanta, GA | HIV-positive | Social cognitive theory of behavior change | The one-on-one coaching sessions included a brief personalized assessment of recent experiences gaining access to health care, addressing barriers to staying in care, challenges to taking cART, sexual decisions, emotions, and relationships Each session included content directed at addressing the links between mood, situational contexts, social relations and substance use in relation to HIV health care, cART adherence, and sexual behaviors Decisional balance exercises and problem-solving activities focused on treatment adherence and sexual risks for STI in the context of viral load In each session, sexual decision-making was placed within scenarios of individually tailored challenges such as substance use, mood/depression, relationship status, viral load, and HIV disclosure. Effective decisions regarding medication management and sexual health strategies were the focus of each session | 3,6,9,12-month | HIV viral load; Antiretroviral adherence and HIV care visits; Sexual behavior |
| Nöstlinger C et al. 2016 [ | European | HIV-positive MSM | SCT, IMB, and dual process approaches in health risk decision making | Session 1: focused on exploring participants emotional response to individual problems with safer sex, using the filmed role models; Session 2: focused on developing personal solutions for the identified problems that would fit participants’ context and lifestyles; Session 3: counseling interaction and resulted in a personalized risk reduction plan | Post intervention, 3,6-month | Condom use; Relevant Socio-demographic; Health-related variables |
| Teti M et al. 2010 [ | Philadelphia, PA | Women Living with HIV/AIDS | Trans theoretical Model, the Modified AIDS Risk Reduction Model, and the Theory of Gender and Power | Brief HIV prevention messages delivered by clinicians in the context of routine medical visits • A group-level intervention (GLI) delivered by a Health Educator • A Peer-led support group | 6,12,18- month | Partner Disclosure; Condom use |
| Brown JL et al. 2019 [ | Northeastern US city | HIV-positive MSM | Motivational interviewing | Session 1: Program overview, focus on healthy living, coping effectiveness training, and stress management; Session 2: Healthy relationships The two group sessions that addressed motivational, behavioral skills, and HIV transmission information tailored to HIV-infected MSM coupled with stress management training | Post intervention, 3-month | HIV Transmission Knowledge; Condom Attitudes; Unprotected Sexual Behaviors |
| Caballero-Suárez NP et al. 2019 [ | Mexico City | HIV-positive | CBT | Module1: Emotional regulation Module2: Sero status disclosure Module3: Quality of sexual life Module4: Triggers of sexual risk behaviors Module5: Correct and consistent condom use Module6: Negotiation of sex | 1,3-month | Depression symptoms; Anxiety symptoms; Sero-status disclosure; Quality of sexual life; Consistent condom use; Correct condom use skills |
| Pettifor A et al. 2015 [ | Lilongwe, Malawi | Acute HIV Infection | IMB, Motivational interviewing | This and all subsequent sessions will begin with a review of the participant’s emotional status, understanding of HIV, behavioral experiences relating to sex or abstinence, and barriers to the chosen behavioral goals Learning condom-use skills and negotiation, disclosure-communication skills, and social support Reviewing the participant’s emotional status, HIV understanding, behavioral experiences relating to sex or abstinence and barriers to the chosen behavioral goals, and the status of partner notification/disclosure and referral | Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 | Sexual behaviors |
Quality assessment of included studies
| Author | Sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blinding of participants | Incomplete outcome data | Selective outcome reporting | Availability of treatment manual | Use of training for therapy providers | Quality classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charles H. Klein | Low | Low | Low | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
| Dean G. Cruess | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low |
| Jeffrey T. Parsons | NA | NA | High | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear |
| Krishna C. Poudel | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear |
| Deborah L Jones | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
| Mark Williams | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear |
| Travis I. Lovejoy | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
| Trevor A. Hart | NA | NA | High | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear |
| Nabila El-Bassel | Low | Low | Low | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
| Lisa B Hightow-Weidman | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear |
| Sibongile Mashaphu | Low | Low | Low | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
| Seth C. Kalichman | Low | Low | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low |
| Christiana Nöstlinger | Low | Low | High | High | Unclear | Unclear | High | High |
| Michelle Teti | Low | Low | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
| Jennifer L. Brown | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Unclear | Low | Low | Unclear |
| Nancy Patricia Caballero-Suárez | NA | NA | High | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
| Audrey Pettifor | Low | Low | High | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | Low |
Sexual behaviors findings from included studies
| Variables | Author | Findings | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proportions of condom use | |||
| Charles H. Klein | 3-month: Sex with All partners: mean difference = 0.33, HIV negative partners: mean difference = 0.31, HIV positive partners: mean difference = 0.48, | ||
| Deborah L Jones | Means: Control: baseline: 0.72, post intervention: 0.70, 6-month: 0.63 Intervention: baseline: 0.60, post intervention: 0.73, 6-month: 0.57 | ||
| Nabila El-Bassel | Intervention: Baseline: 0.44 (0.38) Post-intervention: 0.82 (0.28) 6-month: 0.75 (0.36) 12-month: 0.72 (0.38) | Control: Baseline: 0.44 (0.40) Post intervention: 0.55 (0.43) 6-month: 0.56 (0.43) 12-month: 0.56 (0.43) | |
| Sibongile Mashaphu | 3-month: Intervention: 73.68% Control: 37.50% 6-month: Intervention: 77.78% Control: 71.42% | ||
| Nancy Patricia Caballero-Suárez | Baseline Mdn = 100, IQR: 88.88–100 F (One week after intervention) Mdn = 95.83%, IQR: 80.35–95.83 Correct condom use skills: Before Mdn = 57.14%, IQR: 42.85–64.28 After Mdn = 100% Effect size (d = 2.75) F (One week after intervention) Mdn = 100% IQR: 85.71–100 F versus FU1 (1-month) Mdn = 92.85% IQR: 85.7–92.85, F versus FU2 (3-month) Mdn = 92.85%, IQR 85.71–92.85, | ||
| Mark Williams | Intervention: Intake: 23% 3-month: 55% 9-monh: 48% | Control: Intake: 22% 3-month: 39% 9-monh: 44% | |
| CAS* frequencies | |||
| Jeffrey T. Parsons | 3-month: Means ± d: 9.50 ± 1.66 | ||
| Trevor A. Hart | Sex with Casual HIV-positive partners: Baseline: 61.5%, post-intervention: 46.2% 3-month: 42.3% Sex with Casual HIV-negative partners: Baseline: 17.3%, post-intervention: 21.2%, 3-month: 17.3%; Casual partners of unknown HIV-status: Baseline: 42.3%, post-intervention: 26.9% 3-month: 21.1% Sex with Regular HIV-positive partner: Baseline: 32.8%, post-intervention: 28.9% 3-month: 25.0% Sex with Regular HIV-negative partner: Baseline: 1.9%, post-intervention: 1.9% 3-month: 0.0% | ||
| Proportion of CAS* | |||
| Seth C. Kalichman | Intervention (N = 250) M (Se) 2-month: 0.69 (0.05) 4-month: 0.43 (0.04) 5-month: 0.45 (0.04) 6-month: 0.34 (0.03) 7-month: 0.44 (0.04) 9-month: 0.50 (0.04) 10-month: 0.46 (0.04) 12-month: 0.50 (0.04) | Comparison Condition (N = 250) 0.54 (0.04) 0.62 (0.05) 0.52 (0.04) 0.39 (0.04) 0.46 (0.04) 0.37 (0.03) 0.41 (0.04) 0.36 (0.04) | |
| Jennifer L. Brown | 3 months: Intervention: M (se) 0.18 (.05) Control: M (se) 0.27 (.05), Effect size = 0.02 | ||
| Audrey Pettifor | Intervention: Baseline: 36% Week 12: 0% Week 24: 0% | Control: 54% 8% 0% | |
| RR or OR | |||
| Condom use RR | Dean G. Cruess | 6-month: Intervention vs. Control Sex with All partners: incident rate ratios (IRR) = 0.91(0.63–1.30) Sex with HIV-negative/unknown: (IRR) = 0.33(0.20–0.53) | |
| Travis I. Lovejoy | 3-month follow-up, 4-session MI participants vs. Controls: OR = 3.15 [1.02–9.72]; 4- session vs. 1-session MI conditions: OR = 1.17 [0.48–2.86]; 1-session MI vs. Control conditions: OR = 2.69 [0.88–8.27] 6-month: 4-session MI participants vs. Controls: OR = 2.23 [0.78–6.40] 4- session vs. 1-session MI conditions: OR = 1.19 [0.48–2.99]; 1-session MI vs. Control conditions: OR = 1.87 [0.66–5.30] | ||
| CAS* RR | Lisa B Hightow-Weidman | 3-months post-intervention: HIV-positive partners: Incidence ratio 0.18, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.32 Either HIV-positive with undetectable viral loads or HIV-negative/unknown: Incidence ratio 0.88, 95% CI: 0.51, 1.26 | HIV-positive partners: Incidence ratio 0.50, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.89 Either HIV-positive with undetectable viral loads or HIV-negative/unknown: Incidence ratio 0.87, 95% CI: 0.51, 1.23 |
| Condom use OR | Christiana Nöstlinger | 3 month vs. baseline: Intervention: OR = 6.77, 95%CI: 2.48–18.52 Control: OR = 1.77, 95%CI: 0.72–4.32 6-month vs. baseline: Intervention: OR = 5.46, 95%CI: 2.16–13.79 Control: OR = 2.53, 95%CI: 0.98–6.52 | |
| Proportion of condom use difference OR | Michelle Teti | Baseline difference: OR: 4.58 (0.85, 24.74) 6-Month difference: OR: 17.13 (2.96, 99.10) 12-Month difference: OR: 1.52 (0.25, 9.24) 18-Month difference: OR: 270.04 (24.53, 2971.94) | |
| Condom use intention net difference | |||
| Krishna C. Poudel | Post intervention: Regular partners: 0.60, HIV positive: 0.36, HIV negative: 0.11, HIV status unknown: 0.05, | ||
CAS Condom less Anal sex
IRR Incidence risk ratio
Fig. 2Forest plot of effect size: impact of prevention interventions on proportions of condom uses