Glenn J Wagner1, Rhoda K Wanyenze2, Jolly Beyeza-Kashesya3, Violet Gwokyalya4, Emily Hurley5, Deborah Mindry6, Sarah Finocchario-Kessler7, Mastula Nanfuka8, Mahlet G Tebeka9, Uzaib Saya9, Marika Booth10, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar10, Sebastian Linnemayr10, Vincent S Staggs5, Kathy Goggin5. 1. RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St., Santa Monica, CA, 91105, USA. gwagner@rand.org. 2. School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. 3. Department of Reproductive Medicine, Mulago Specialised Women and Neonatal Hospital, Kampala, Uganda. 4. Department of Disease Control and Environmental Health, Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda. 5. Children's Mercy Research Institute, Children's Mercy Kansas City, University of Missouri - Kansas City School of Medicine, 2401 Gillham Road, Kansas City, MO, 64108, USA. 6. University of California Global Health Institute, Center for Women's Health and Empowerment, 1234 Sunny Oaks Circle, Altadena, CA, 91001, USA. 7. Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA. 8. The AIDS Support Organization, Kampala, Uganda. 9. Pardee RAND Graduate School, 1776 Main St., Santa Monica, CA, 91105, USA. 10. RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St., Santa Monica, CA, 91105, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Safer conception counseling (SCC) to promote the use of safer conception methods (SCM) is not yet part of routine family planning or HIV care. Guidelines for the use of SCM have been published, but to date there are no published controlled evaluations of SCC. Furthermore, it is unknown whether standard methods commonly used in resource constrained settings to integrate new services would be sufficient, or if enhanced training and supervision would result in a more efficacious approach to implementing SCC. METHODS: In a hybrid, cluster randomized controlled trial, six HIV clinics were randomly assigned to implement the SCC intervention Our Choice using either a high (SCC1) or low intensity (SCC2) approach (differentiated by amount of training and supervision), or existing family planning services (usual care). Three hundred eighty-nine HIV clients considering childbearing with an HIV-negative partner enrolled. The primary outcome was self-reported use of appropriate reproductive method (SCM if trying to conceive; modern contraceptives if not) over 12 months or until pregnancy. RESULTS: The combined intervention groups used appropriate reproductive methods more than usual care [20.8% vs. 6.9%; adjusted OR (95% CI)=10.63 (2.79, 40.49)], and SCC1 reported a higher rate than SCC2 [27.1% vs. 14.6%; OR (95% CI)=4.50 (1.44, 14.01)]. Among those trying to conceive, the intervention arms reported greater accurate use of SCM compared to usual care [24.1% vs. 0%; OR (95% CI)=91.84 (4.94, 1709.0)], and SCC1 performed better than SCC2 [34.6% vs. 11.5%; OR (95% CI)=6.43 (1.90, 21.73)]. The arms did not vary on modern contraception use among those not trying to conceive. A cost of $631 per person was estimated to obtain accurate use of SCM in SCC1, compared to $1014 in SCC2. CONCLUSIONS: More intensive provider training and more frequent supervision leads to greater adoption of complex SCM behaviors and is more cost-effective than the standard low intensity implementation approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03167879 ; date registered May 23, 2017.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Safer conception counseling (SCC) to promote the use of safer conception methods (SCM) is not yet part of routine family planning or HIV care. Guidelines for the use of SCM have been published, but to date there are no published controlled evaluations of SCC. Furthermore, it is unknown whether standard methods commonly used in resource constrained settings to integrate new services would be sufficient, or if enhanced training and supervision would result in a more efficacious approach to implementing SCC. METHODS: In a hybrid, cluster randomized controlled trial, six HIV clinics were randomly assigned to implement the SCC intervention Our Choice using either a high (SCC1) or low intensity (SCC2) approach (differentiated by amount of training and supervision), or existing family planning services (usual care). Three hundred eighty-nine HIV clients considering childbearing with an HIV-negative partner enrolled. The primary outcome was self-reported use of appropriate reproductive method (SCM if trying to conceive; modern contraceptives if not) over 12 months or until pregnancy. RESULTS: The combined intervention groups used appropriate reproductive methods more than usual care [20.8% vs. 6.9%; adjusted OR (95% CI)=10.63 (2.79, 40.49)], and SCC1 reported a higher rate than SCC2 [27.1% vs. 14.6%; OR (95% CI)=4.50 (1.44, 14.01)]. Among those trying to conceive, the intervention arms reported greater accurate use of SCM compared to usual care [24.1% vs. 0%; OR (95% CI)=91.84 (4.94, 1709.0)], and SCC1 performed better than SCC2 [34.6% vs. 11.5%; OR (95% CI)=6.43 (1.90, 21.73)]. The arms did not vary on modern contraception use among those not trying to conceive. A cost of $631 per person was estimated to obtain accurate use of SCM in SCC1, compared to $1014 in SCC2. CONCLUSIONS: More intensive provider training and more frequent supervision leads to greater adoption of complex SCM behaviors and is more cost-effective than the standard low intensity implementation approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03167879 ; date registered May 23, 2017.
Authors: Myron S Cohen; Ying Q Chen; Marybeth McCauley; Theresa Gamble; Mina C Hosseinipour; Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy; James G Hakim; Johnstone Kumwenda; Beatriz Grinsztejn; Jose H S Pilotto; Sheela V Godbole; Sanjay Mehendale; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Breno R Santos; Kenneth H Mayer; Irving F Hoffman; Susan H Eshleman; Estelle Piwowar-Manning; Lei Wang; Joseph Makhema; Lisa A Mills; Guy de Bruyn; Ian Sanne; Joseph Eron; Joel Gallant; Diane Havlir; Susan Swindells; Heather Ribaudo; Vanessa Elharrar; David Burns; Taha E Taha; Karin Nielsen-Saines; David Celentano; Max Essex; Thomas R Fleming Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-07-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sarah Finocchario-Kessler; Rhoda Wanyenze; Deborah Mindry; Jolly Beyeza-Kashesya; Kathy Goggin; Christine Nabiryo; Glenn Wagner Journal: Health Care Women Int Date: 2014-08-08
Authors: Jolly Beyeza-Kashesya; Frank Kaharuza; Florence Mirembe; Stella Neema; Anna Mia Ekstrom; Asli Kulane Journal: Afr Health Sci Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 0.927
Authors: Violet Gwokyalya; Jolly Beyeza-Kashesya; John Baptist Bwanika; Joseph K B Matovu; Shaban Mugerwa; Jim Arinaitwe; Dickson Kasozi; Justine Bukenya; Rosemary Kindyomunda; Glenn J Wagner; Fredrick E Makumbi; Rhoda K Wanyenze Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 3.223
Authors: Janet Jull; Sascha Köpke; Maureen Smith; Meg Carley; Jeanette Finderup; Anne C Rahn; Laura Boland; Sandra Dunn; Andrew A Dwyer; Jürgen Kasper; Simone Maria Kienlin; France Légaré; Krystina B Lewis; Anne Lyddiatt; Claudia Rutherford; Junqiang Zhao; Tamara Rader; Ian D Graham; Dawn Stacey Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-11-08
Authors: Caroline A Bulstra; Jan A C Hontelez; Moritz Otto; Anna Stepanova; Erik Lamontagne; Anna Yakusik; Wafaa M El-Sadr; Tsitsi Apollo; Miriam Rabkin; Rifat Atun; Till Bärnighausen Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Glenn J Wagner; Laura M Bogart; Joseph K B Matovu; Stephen Okoboi; Harold D Green; Erik D Storholm; David J Klein; Ryan K McBain; Richard Serunkuuma; Kuraish Mubiru Journal: Trials Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Lynn T Matthews; Christina Psaros; Mxolisi Mathenjwa; Nzwakie Mosery; Letitia Rambally Greener; Hazar Khidir; Jacquelyn R Hovey; Madeline C Pratt; Abigail Harrison; Kara Bennett; David R Bangsberg; Jennifer A Smit; Steven A Safren Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-05-04