The Evidence Project: Protocol for Systematic Reviews of Behavioral Interventions and Behavioral Aspects of Biomedical Interventions for HIV Prevention, Treatment, and Health Service Delivery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

The Evidence Project conducts systematic reviews and meta-analyses of HIV behavioral interventions, behavioral aspects of biomedical interventions, combination prevention strategies, modes of service delivery, and integrated programs in low- and middle-income countries. Here, we present the overall protocol for our reviews. For each topic, we conduct a comprehensive search of five online databases, complemented by secondary reference searching. Articles are included if they are published in peer-reviewed journals and present pre/post or multi-arm data on outcomes of interest. Data are extracted from each included article by two trained coders working independently using standardized coding forms, with differences resolved by consensus. Risk of bias is assessed with the Evidence Project tool. Data are synthesized descriptively, and meta-analysis is conducted when there are similarly measured outcomes across studies. For over 20 years, this approach has allowed us to synthesize literature on the effectiveness of interventions and contribute to the global HIV response.

The Impact of Needle and Syringe Exchange Programs on HIV-Related Risk Behaviors in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Examining Individual- Versus Community-Level Effects.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of needle and syringe exchange programs (NSP) on both individual- and community-level needle-sharing behaviors and other HIV-related outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). A search of five databases for peer-reviewed trial or quasi-experimental studies reported through July 2021 identified 42 interventions delivered in 35 studies, with a total of 56,751 participants meeting inclusion criteria. Random-effects meta-analysis showed a significant protective association between NSP exposure and needle-sharing behaviors at the individual-level (odds ratio [OR] = 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.16-0.39, 8 trials, n = 3947) and community-level (OR 0.39, CI 0.22-0.69, 12 trials, n = 6850), although with significant heterogeneity. When stratified by needle-sharing directionality, NSP exposure remained associated with reduced receptive sharing, but not distributive sharing. NSP exposure was also associated with reduced HIV incidence and increased HIV testing but there were no consistent associations with prevalence of bloodborne infections. Current evidence suggests positive impacts of NSPs in LMICs.

RESUMEN: Realizamos una revisión sistemática y un metanálisis del impacto de los programas de intercambio de agujas y jeringas (NSP, por sus siglas en inglés) de los comportamientos de uso compartido de agujas tanto a nivel individual como comunitario y otros resultados relacionados con el VIH en países de ingresos bajos y medianos (LMIC, por sus siglas en inglés). Realizamos búsquedas sistemáticas en cinco bases de datos hasta julio de 2021 en busca de ensayos revisados por pares o estudios cuasiexperimentales. En general, 42 intervenciones informadas en 35 estudios entre 56 751 participantes cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. El metanálisis de efectos aleatorios de ocho estudios a nivel individual y 12 a nivel comunitario con 11 075 participantes en total mostró una asociación protectora significativa entre la exposición a NSP y los comportamientos de compartir agujas (individual: OR 0,25, IC95%: 0,16­0,39; comunidad: OR 0,39, IC95%:0,22­0,69), aunque con una heterogeneidad importante. Cuando se estratificó por la direccionalidad del intercambio de agujas, la exposición a NSP permaneció asociada con un intercambio receptivo reducido, pero no con un intercambio distributivo. La exposición a NSP también se asoció con una incidencia reducida del VIH y un aumento de las pruebas del VIH, pero no hubo asociaciones consistentes para la prevalencia de infecciones transmitidas por la sangre. La evidencia actual sugiere impactos positivos de los NSP en los LMIC.

The Evidence Project risk of bias tool: assessing study rigor for both randomized and non-randomized intervention studies.

BACKGROUND: Different tools exist for assessing risk of bias of intervention studies for systematic reviews. We present a tool for assessing risk of bias across both randomized and non-randomized study designs. The tool was developed by the Evidence Project, which conducts systematic reviews and meta-analyses of behavioral interventions for HIV in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We present the eight items of the tool and describe considerations for each and for the tool as a whole. We then evaluate reliability of the tool by presenting inter-rater reliability for 125 selected studies from seven published reviews, calculating a kappa for each individual item and a weighted kappa for the total count of items. RESULTS: The tool includes eight items, each of which is rated as being present (yes) or not present (no) and, for some items, not applicable or not reported. The items include (1) cohort, (2) control or comparison group, (3) pre-post intervention data, (4) random assignment of participants to the intervention, (5) random selection of participants for assessment, (6) follow-up rate of 80% or more, (7) comparison groups equivalent on sociodemographics, and (8) comparison groups equivalent at baseline on outcome measures. Together, items (1)-(3) summarize the study design, while the remaining items consider other common elements of study rigor. Inter-rater reliability was moderate to substantial for all items, ranging from 0.41 to 0.80 (median κ = 0.66). Agreement between raters on the total count of items endorsed was also substantial (κw = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Strengths of the tool include its applicability to a range of study designs, from randomized trials to various types of observational and quasi-experimental studies. It is relatively easy to use and interpret and can be applied to a range of review topics without adaptation, facilitating comparability across reviews. Limitations include the lack of potentially relevant items measured in other tools and potential threats to validity of some items. To date, the tool has been applied in over 30 reviews. We believe it is a practical option for assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews of interventions that include a range of study designs.

Increasing HIV serostatus disclosure in low and middle-income countries: a systematic review of intervention evaluations.

OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness of interventions to increase HIV serostatus disclosure in low and middle-income countries. DESIGN: Systematic review of peer-reviewed articles providing prepost or multiarm evaluations of disclosure interventions, defined broadly as any intervention with the goal of increasing rates of voluntary disclosure of HIV serostatus through self-disclosure or partner notification. METHODS: Articles were included if they reported postintervention evaluation results and were published between 1 January 1990 and 1 August 2014. Searching was conducted through five electronic databases, secondary searching of four journals, and hand searching reference lists of included articles. Systematic methods were used for screening and data abstraction, which was conducted in duplicate. Study quality (rigor) was assessed with eight items. RESULTS: Fourteen articles evaluating 13 interventions met the inclusion criteria, all from sub-Saharan Africa. Most interventions focused on people living with HIV and used cognitive-behavioral group sessions or peer/community health worker support to encourage disclosure to sexual partners, family members, or friends. One focused on maternal disclosure to HIV-uninfected children, whereas two examined voluntary partner notification interventions. Several studies had limitations due to weak designs, small sample sizes, or high attrition. Findings on disclosure were mixed, with most effect sizes being relatively small, and some more rigorous studies showing no effect. Partner notification interventions had the strongest evidence of impact. CONCLUSION: The existing evidence base for interventions to increase disclosure is limited and shows variable results. Further research is needed to determine whether current approaches to increasing disclosure are effective or whether new approaches should be considered.