Condom Social Marketing Effects in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review Update, 1990 to 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To update the prior systematic review from studies published in the past 9 years that examine the effects of condom social marketing (CSM) programs on condom use in low- and middle-income countries. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and EMBASE. Hand searching of AIDS, AIDS and Behavior, AIDS Care, and AIDS Education and Prevention. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: (a) Published from 1990 to January 16, 2019, (b) low- or middle-income country, (c) evaluated CSM, (d) analyses across preintervention to postintervention exposure or across multiple study arms, (e) measured condom use behavior, and (f) sought to prevent HIV transmission. DATA EXTRACTION: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, 2 reviewers extracted citation, inclusion criteria, methods, study population, setting, sampling, study design, unit of analysis, loss to follow-up, comparison group characteristics, intervention characteristics, and eligible outcome results. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 2012 review found 6 studies (combined N = 23 048). In a meta-analysis, the pooled odds ratio for condom use was 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.42-2.84) for the most recent sexual encounter and 2.10 (95% CI: 1.51-2.91) for a composite of all condom use outcomes. Studies had significant methodological limitations. Of 518 possible new citations identified in the update, no new articles met our inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: More studies are needed with stronger methodological rigor to help provide evidence for the continued use of this approach globally. There is a dearth of studies over the past decade on the effectiveness of CSM in increasing condom use in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

On the origin of vertical line bisection errors.

Four experiments examined the biases of individual subjects when attempting to bisect vertical lines, and tested various hypotheses concerning the origin of vertical bisection errors (VBEs). In each experiment, individual differences on the vertical line bisection task were compared to individual differences on another task to evaluate whether the tasks were systematically related. In the first experiment, VBEs were found not to correlate with horizontal line bisection errors (HBEs). In the second experiment, VBEs were found not to correlate with the size of the horizontal-vertical illusion (HVI). In the third experiment, VBEs were found not to correlate with differences in perceived length of vertical lines presented in the upper and lower visual fields that were displaced horizontally. In the fourth experiment, VBEs were found to correlate with bisection errors of an open vertical interval. The results of the first three studies are counter to various hypotheses of the origins of vertical bisection errors. The last experiment suggests that lines, per se, are unnecessary for VBEs. Rather, it is important that the upper and lower segments of the stimulus that are judged to be equal on vertical bisection tasks are co-extensive.