Introduction
Methods
Search Strategy
Study Selection
Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria | |
---|---|---|
Design | All study types including trials, cross-sectional designs and qualitative process evaluation and qualitative studies (using in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and document analysis | No studies excluded by study design |
Population | Studies in which MSM constitute at least one-third of the study sample or were specifically targeted by the intervention | Interventions where MSM constitute less than one-third of study sample |
Intervention | All interventions that seek to change behaviour through non-interactive visual or auditory means. Including mass media, social marketing, multimedia, major poster and leaflet and radio interventions and combinations of the above | Intervention development without evaluation Interventions focused on social networks Interventions that do not seek to change behaviour |
Comparators | Studies without comparators were included | No studies were excluded based on comparators |
Context | All intervention materials must be in English, Spanish or Italian and/or have English translation attached to materials | Interventions materials only available in languages other than English, Spanish or Italian and/or had no English translation attached to materials |
Outcome | Increase/decrease/no change in number and rates of HIV tests Increase/decrease in self-reported HIV tests | No reporting of HIV testing rates AND/OR self-reported testing |
Publication | Published between 2010-15th November 2016 (date of search) Original studies included in reviews between search dates indicated above Conference proceedings with available intervention materials (e.g. included in presentations/supplied on request) | Dissertations Conference proceedings without available intervention materials |
Data Extraction
Quality Appraisal
Analysis
Study design | Reference | Purpose (aim and objectives) | Recruitment and data collection methods | Sample | Eligibility criteria | Exclusion criteria |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RCT | Tang et al. [34] China | To compare the effectiveness of a crowdsourced intervention versus a health marketing intervention to promote first time HIV testing among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender individuals in China | Online banner advertisement recruitment. Individuals were screened for eligibility, enrolled, and completed the survey then randomly assigned to either watch the crowdsourced video or the health marketing video. Follow-up text message 3 weeks after survey completion asking about HIV test uptake and test result | Total = 721 crowdsourced intervention = 352; health marketing intervention = 369 | Born biologically male, having had anal sex with a man at least once, ≥ 16 years, never tested for HIV, provide valid mobile number | Duplicated mobile numbers were excluded |
Blas et al. [32] Lima, Peru | To study the association between video-based online interventions and proportions of HIV testing in gay-identified and non-gay identified MSM | Online banner advertisements to redirect to study website. After consent, participant randomly assigned to condition using computer algorithm. Baseline assessment, matched emails to those attending clinic | Total = 459, non-gay identified, 97 = video intervention, 90 = control (text) intervention; gay-identified, 142 = video intervention, 130 = control (text) intervention | (1) ≥ 18 years, (2) male and report having had sex with men, (3) be a resident of Lima, Peru, (4) answer the survey from Lima, Peru (5) HIV test over 12 months ago, (5) have a valid email address and, (6) do not report being HIV positive | Excluded 937 (916 did not meet criteria, 21 did not want to participate) leaving final sample of 459. Report only results from the gay and non-gay identified MSM group | |
Hirshfield et al [26] United States of America | To assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing an online intervention (videos/HIV prevention webpage) versus a no-content control | Online banner advertisements with additional email sent to US members of one of the websites. Online self-complete questionnaire at baseline and 60 days post baseline follow-up. Participants randomly assigned to conditions | Convenience sample: Total = 3,092: Control = 609 Prevention webpage = 609, Dramatic video only = 625, Documentary video only = 633, Both videos = 616 | (1) identify as male; (2) ≥ 18 years; (3) live in the US.; (4) provide valid email; (5) report oral or anal sex with a current male partner (new or not), and oral, anal, or vaginal sex with at least one new partner (male or female) in the previous 60 days;( 6) ability to read/respond in English | (1) lived outside of the US; (2) identified as female, female-to-male transgender or male-to-female transgender. Duplicate cases were identified and excluded | |
BAstudy/Pre-Post study | Prati et al. [33] Italy | To investigate the effect of intervention on performance of HIV/AIDS protective behaviours | General population: computer assisted telephone survey, random digit dialling. Used Proportional quota sampling. Contacted again after 6 months. MSM participants—e-mail lists and Web-based communities. Self-administered anonymous online survey, again contacted again after 6 months. Migrant participants—three survey sites: workplace, migrant shelter/camp, and centre for the teaching of Italian as a second language. Self-administered anonymous paper and- pencil survey and again after 6 months | General population (n = 858), MSM (n = 109), and migrants (n = 211) | ≥18 years. Took part in both pre/post surveys and sexually active in the previous 6 months | Not sexually active in the previous 6 months before each interview |
Chiasson et al. [24] United States of America | To compare HIV disclosure three months before and after viewing intervention video | Online banner advertisements; online self-complete questionnaire at baseline and 3 months follow-up | Convenience sample: Original sample of 3052, reduced to 442 in final sample following drop out/inclusion criteria | Limited to the 442 men who reported sex in both baseline and follow-up interviews | Not reported | |
Cross sectional study | Flowers et al. [22] Glasgow, Scotland | To understand the extent of self-reported exposure to intervention among men frequenting venues for gay MSM. To explore whether sexual health related behaviours varied by degree of exposure to the intervention | Men recruited from seven bars frequented by gay men and other MSM in Glasgow ten months post intervention launch | Convenience sample: 1313 men were approached and 822 participated, Final sample = 784 post exclusions | All men present or entering the venue were approached to complete a questionnaire | Final sample excluded men who identified themselves as HIV positive |
Pedrana et al. [29] Victoria, Australia | To assess intervention impact using four key indicators: intervention awareness, HIV/STI knowledge, health seeking behaviour and HIV/STI testing | Cross sectional data Multiple recruitment methods: convenience samples e.g. gay community venues, gay community events; participants from a recent community- based HIV prevalence study and snowballing. Completed online surveys, linked with unique code to allow matching, surveyed at regular intervals (3-6 monthly). Clinic data routinely collected data from Victorian Primary Care Network for Sentinel Surveillance | Cross sectional data Sample of 295 gay men Clinic data data from 3 clinics | Men, ≥ 18 years, self-identified as gay or homosexually active in the past 5 years. Men had to have been recruited between September 2008 and April 2009 and completed any of the 3 survey rounds | Not reported | |
Wilkinson et al. [30] Victoria, Australia | To explore the effectiveness of DDU to increase HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia testing among MSM | Survey data Surveyed annually between September 2008-August 2014. Recruitment sites varied over time, included gay venues and community events, gay sporting clubs, gay online dating sites, social media, and snowballing. Surveillance Data The Victorian Primary Care Network for Sentinel Surveillance (VPCNSS) gathered during specific periods | 1228 MSM (survey 4: n = 389, survey 5: n = 743, survey 6: n = 343, survey 7: n = 353, survey 8: n = 328). (242 included in final sample) | Males, self-identifying as Gay/MSM, ≥ 18 years, completing 3 + surveys between December 2010 and August 2014 | Evaluation cohort recruited pre December 2010, completed less than three surveys, self-reported HIV positive. Surveillance data Tests within 30 days of a previous test and those indicated for HIV post-exposure prophylaxis | |
McOwan et al. [15] England, UK | To evaluate the effect of an HIV testing intervention specifically aimed at gay men in central London, UK who were South European Origin, Black Origin or aged under 25 years old | Convenience sample: MSM testing for HIV within one of three London clinics during 2000, lab records were located for those matching three target groups (South European origin, Black origin, ≤ 25 years) | three clinics in London- 1999 = 65 (target clinic), 239 (other clinics); 2000 = 292 (target clinic), 236 (other clinics) | MSM testing for HIV at one of three target clinics during a specific timeframe, specifically South European origin, Black origin, ≤ 25 years | Not reported | |
Guy et al. [14] Victoria, Australia | To measure the extent of any change in the uptake of testing for HIV and STIs during and subsequent to the intervention | Three types of data: Sentinel surveillance data—five clinics referred to within intervention. Routine laboratory data—four clinics (pre, during and post intervention). Behavioural survey-subset of existing national survey, mainly administered at gay scene event. Surveys for 2004, 2005 and 2006 were compared | Convenience samples: those attending clinics (sentinel data/lab data), men completing Melbourne Gay Community Periodic Survey living in Victoria (numbers not explicitly stated) | Lab/Sentinel surveillance data—men attending clinic within set timeframes. Behavioural survey—only information from Victorian residents was included | Not reported | |
Gilbert et al. [31] British Columbia, Canada | To describe the impact of targeted NAAT on identification of AHI and discuss the potential of social marketing interventions to optimise detection among MSM | Samples were included from 6 study clinics if sex recorded as male, transgendered or missing and were ≥ 18 years | Convenience sample: Testing rates from 6 clinics | sex recorded as male, transgendered or missing and were ≥ 18 years | Not reported | |
Hilliam et al. [23] Scotland, UK | To evaluate the impact on awareness of HIV, attitudes towards testing, prevention and safer sex in both MSM and Health Professionals | Internet recruitment. Websites contained link to online survey. Self-reported online survey pre intervention (April–May 2010) and post intervention (October–November 2010). Post intervention recruitment added use of Grindr | Convenience sample: Pre-stage sample: 309 (MSM = 88; HP = 221) Post- stage sample: 980 (MSM = 775, HP = 205) | Not reported | Men who have sex with women only | |
James [20] England, UK | To evaluate effectiveness of English intervention which promotes testing to men who have sex with men (MSM) and Africans | Limited information: Data from testing centres and community surveys | not explicitly stated | Not reported | Not reported | |
Retrospective cohort study or Cross sectional study | Erausquin et al. [25] Los Angeles County, USA | A pilot intervention to increase awareness of free testing services, provide incentives for getting test results, and improve access to treatment in Latino males | Community venues: outreach volunteers distributed cards target population to encourage testing. Routinely gathered data from clinic with addition of information of outreach card. Data from the intervention period (August–October 2004) compared to data from two comparison periods: May–July 2004 and August–October 2003 | Convenience sample: Males testing for MSM within LAGLC’s Service, Prevention, Outreach, Treatment centre in West Hollywood-Fall 2003- n = 86, Summer 2004 n = 97, Fall 2004 n = 95 | Results are limited to males who attended HIV testing within specific timeframes, ≤ age 25, reporting sexual activity with a male | Not reported |
Non-comparative study
| Brady et al. [18] England, UK | To pilot a national, free at the point of use home HIV sampling service | Testing rates were gathered during the intervention period | 9,868 tests were requested over the pilot period and 6,230 (63.1%) were returned | Not reported | Not reported |
West et al. [15] England, UK | To review advertising strategies used and numbers of clients who requested POCT during NHTW | Grindr advertisements within 5 miles of clinics contained link to website including a video demonstrating POCT. Electronic records of those attending for POCT and activity data from software clinic | 43 asymptomatic attendees | Not reported | Not reported | |
Interrupted time series | Hickson et al. [19] England, UK | Longitudinal survey to examine patterns of HIV testing and assess whether testing rates were associated with intervention periods | Internet recruitment. Invite to enrol sent to those completing a previous survey and users of two gay-dating websites. Self-reported baseline survey followed by 13 monthly follow ups | There were 3386 enrolments, following exclusions/drop outs final sample of 2047 participants | Male; England resident; ≥ 16 years; sexually attracted to/has sex with men; valid email address | Those with existing HIV-positive diagnosis and those with no or inconsistent HIV test results |
Solorio et al. [27] Seattle, USA | To assess intervention feasibility and identify processes that worked and those that did not | Convenience sample: recruited from various sites, including community events, the Internet, STD clinics, entertainment venues, and Latino newspapers and referral of peers to study. Survey every 3 months, starting with 3 months before intervention (baseline interview), 3 months into intervention and 2 months post-intervention. Self-reported questionnaires | pre-intervention assessment-50, mid-intervention assessment-44, follow-up post-intervention-41 | (a) self-report Latino heritage; (b) speak Spanish; (c) biological male; (d) report sex with men in past 12 months; (e) 18-30; f) negative HIV serostatus (if known) | Not reported | |
Case study/illustrative example
| Thackeray et al [28] USA | Provided illustrative example of the use of Social marketing theory in two case study interventions | Two case studies; illustrative example using social marketing theory on HIV testing intervention | two examples | Not reported | Not reported |
Study design | Reference | Nature of intervention(s) | Control intervention | Outcome measures | Internal validity | External validity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RCT | Tang et al. [34] China | The 1 min video depicted 2 Chinese men embarking on a relationship and testing for HIV together. The 1 min health marketing video used a cartoon storyline to provide HIV education and promoting HIV testing | Noninferiority design without a control group | self-reported first-time HIV testing |
+
|
+
|
Blas et al. [32] Lima, Peru | Videos framed within Health Belief model and aimed to identify strategies to overcome reasons for not testing specific to target audience | Text used in control condition came from existing intervention to increase testing in Mexico | Intention to get tested, HIV testing |
+
|
–
| |
Hirshfield et al [26] United States of America | Five study conditions: (1) dramatic video; (2) documentary video; (3) both videos; (4) prevention webpage; and (5) control (i.e., received no intervention content). The Morning After-drama (9 min) depicting 3 gay male friends, one of whom thinks he had unprotected sex with an HIV-positive man while intoxicated and seeks advice from friends. Talking About HIV—documentary (5 min) HIV positive men discuss their experiences, uses footage from a feature-length documentary, ‘‘Meth.’’ | Control received no content | Self-reported HIV disclosure and other risk behaviours |
+
|
+
| |
BAstudy/Pre-Post study | Prati et al. [33] Italy | United Against AIDS (December 2012, 2 weeks; February–March 2013, 2 weeks) - television and radio public service announcements, print materials (e.g., posters, brochures), Web based advertisements, and cinema and newspaper advertisements. Emphasizing benefits and advantages of safer sex behaviour and getting an HIV test | Not applicable | Self reported exposure to the intervention, recent (in the previous 6 months) HIV risk behaviours and lifetime HIV testing |
+
|
++
|
Chiasson et al. [24] United States of America | The Morning after-Use of 9 min dramatic video to prompt critical thinking about HIV disclosure, HIV testing, alcohol use and risky behaviours | Not applicable | Self-reported HIV disclosure and other risk behaviours |
–
|
+
| |
Cross sectional study | Flowers et al. [22] Glasgow, Scotland | Social marketing intervention aimed at MSM promoting use of condoms and water-based lubricant during Anal intercourse; regular sexual health check-ups and HIV testing at least every 6 months. Materials included posters, electronic images and leaflets, with a intervention website. Posters and leaflets were distributed to both clinical and community (wider and gay scene) settings | Not applicable | Self-reported recency of HIV testing, recency of STI testing, Intention to HIV test and correct use of lubricant |
++
|
+
|
Pedrana et al. [29] Victoria, Australia | Drama Down under: Intervention aimed to increase access to treatment, increase awareness and knowledge; and minimize the transmission of HIV/STIs in MSM. Used print and radio advertisement, printed resources, outdoor advertisements, public events, and banner advertising on gay dating sites, ‘novel’ intervention resources (e.g., fridge magnets, drink holders, and underwear) and intervention-specific events (e.g., the “Drama Down Underwear” Show) | Not applicable | Self-reported Awareness of intervention, HIV/STI knowledge, Testing in past 6 months, Health seeking behaviours. Clinic data- testing rates |
++
|
+
| |
Wilkinson et al. [30] Victoria, Australia | Drama down under aimed to improve screening rates and knowledge of HIV/STIs, and to reduce HIV/STIs transmission among MSM. Intervention was focused on ‘inner metropolitan Melbourne’ and included outdoor media, digital media (e.g., banners on dating Web sites), and print gay media, supported by a range of intervention material (e.g., postcards, pamphlets, fridge magnets, and underwear) | Not applicable | Self-reported HIV test in the previous 12 months, number of partners, sex with casual partners, reporting condomless sex with casual partner, recall of intervention and its message. Surveillance Data: HIV/STI monthly testing rates |
++
|
+
| |
McOwan et al. [15] England, UK | Gimmie 5 min (12 weeks): Advertisements in free paper distributed on the gay scene in London, images were chosen to reflect target groups | Not applicable | Testing rates at target clinic, UAI since last test, testing as result of an advert |
+
|
+
| |
Guy et al. [14] Victoria, Australia | ‘Check-It-Out’ targeted MSM including specific groups (community/non community attached and ‘culturally and linguistically diverse’). Intervention aimed to increase HIV and STI testing, increase regular HIV and STI testing and promote general sexual health | Not applicable | Lab/sentinel data: number of tests conducted per month. Behaviour study changes in self-reported testing patterns |
+
|
–
| |
Gilbert et al. [31] British Columbia, Canada | 1) What Are You Waiting For - focused on raising awareness of rapid testing and NAAT (December 2009 to February 2010) 2) Hottest At The Start- focused on raising awareness of AHI and increased transmission risk in MSM in new relationships or engaging in risky sex.(June to August 2011) | Not applicable | Testing rates of those attending clinic |
–
|
–
| |
Hilliam et al. [23] Scotland, UK | HIV Wake up Intervention (May 2010)- to inform MSM across Scotland about HIV and levels of transmission, the benefits of prevention and regular testing and where they can go to seek more information and advice. Resources included leaflets and posters, digital online banners and targeted web pages and other web media (e.g. emails targeted at Gaydar users). Materials displayed in ‘scene’ venues and wider community | Not applicable | Self reported knowledge and understanding around HIV testing, awareness and exposure to intervention, HIV testing and other risk behaviours |
–
|
+
| |
James [20] England, UK | National HIV Testing week (four weeks) promoted through targeted print, social media and outdoor advertising. Stakeholders also provide expanded testing services | Not applicable | Clinic based testing rates |
Not assessed- insufficient detail
| ||
Retrospective cohort study or Cross sectional study | Erausquin et al. [25] Los Angeles County, USA | Outreach cards provided at Latino-oriented gay club and event nights could be swapped for a movie pass at the time of testing. Information was also advertised on two Internet sites and in three gay/bisexual-oriented magazines. Again these included outreach cards that could be exchanged for movie passes at the time of testing | Not applicable | Testing rates of those attending clinic |
–
|
+
|
Non-comparative study
| Brady et al. [18] England, UK | HIV testing interventions and social media marketing were used to increase HIV testing rates, in particular those requesting self-tests | Not applicable | Testing rates |
Not assessed- insufficient detail
| |
West et al. [15] England, UK | Grindr users within 5 miles, received link to website with POCT video, Poster interventions were also in place at the time | Not applicable | Clinic based testing rates and number of visits to website |
Not assessed- insufficient detail
| ||
Interrupted time series | Hickson et al. [19] England, UK | 1) ‘I Did It’ (December 2010-April 2011)-Terrence Higgins Trust (THT) intervention aimed to make MSM aware of ease and convenience of HIV testing. Used media advertisements, radio and website. 2) ‘Clever Dick/Smart Arse’ (November 2011-February 2012)-THT intervention promoting condom use (3)‘Count Me In’- GMFA, encouraged men to commit to an action plan which included HIV testing | Not applicable | Self reported HIV testing behaviour and self reported exposure to interventions |
++
|
+
|
Solorio et al. [27] Seattle, USA | Tu Amigo Pepe Spanish-language radio PSAs, a Web site, social media outreach, a mobile phone reminder system, print materials, posters in stores frequented by Latinos, and a free hotline | Not applicable | Self reported HIV testing rates, intention, experiential attitude, instrumental attitude, self-efficacy, and norms toward HIV testing |
+
|
–
| |
Case study/illustrative example
| Thackeray et al [28] USA | One on mental health, second You Know Different—large-scale intervention focused on increasing HIV testing among African American youth | Not applicable | HIV testing rates |
Not assessed- insufficient detail
|
Study | Primary results (for MSM only) | Intervention had a negative effect (i.e, decrease in uptake of HIV testing) | Intervention had no effect | Intervention had an effect on the antecedent of behaviour (e.g. intentions to test or knowledge) | Indicative of some positive desired behaviour change | Indicative of clear behaviour change in desired direction |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blas et al. [32] Lima, Peru | In the non-gay identified group, participants in the video group were more likely to report intentions of getting tested in the next 30 days (RR = 2.77, 95% CI 1.42–5.39), make an Internet appointment (RR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.13–1.05) and to attend the clinic for testing (11.3% versus 0%, p-0.001) than participants in the text-based intervention In the gay identified group, differences in the reporting of intentions of getting tested for HIV within the next 30 days (RR = 1.54; 95% CI: 0.74–3.20), in making an Internet appointment (RR = 1.11; 95% CI: 0.88–1.39) and in attending the clinic for HIV testing (RR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.40–2.85) were not statistically significant between participants from the video-based intervention and the text-based intervention |
X
| ||||
Brady et al. [18] England, UK | 8015 self-sampling kits were requested by MSM during the pilot period, with 65.2% returned, with a positivity rate of 1.6%. Authors report the increase in requests for tests was “strongly linked to HIV testing interventions and marketing the service on social media”, but no results are provided, other than that a single Grindr message resulted in 3575 visits to the online order page |
X
| ||||
Chiasson et al. [24] United States of America | HIV testing was reported by 120 men, but differences in how data were collected at baseline and follow up did not allow for comparison of testing between the two time points |
0
| ||||
Erausquin et al. [25] Los Angeles County, USA | MSM clients testing in the intervention period were younger (F(2,233) = 3.13, p = 0.045) and more likely to report being Latino than clients in the non-intervention period (× 2(2) = 8.33, p = 0.021) |
X
| ||||
Flowers et al [22] Glasgow | When adjusted for age, area of residence and use of the gay scene, those with high intervention exposure were more likely to have tested for HIV in the previous 6 months than those with no exposure (AOR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.26-3.06, p = 0.003), although causality cannot be addressed |
X
| ||||
Gilbert et al [31] British Columbia, Canada | The volume of HIV tests at study clinics increased over the post-implementation period (p = 0.023) and there was an increase in acute and non-acute HIV diagnosis rates and an increase in the acute to non-acute rate ration (p = 0.015) at study sites with the second social marketing intervention. CIs not provided |
X
| ||||
Guy et al [14] Victoria, Australia | The sentinel surveillance network showed no increase in the overall extent of HIV testing and no difference in the proportion of MSM reporting regular annual HIV testing during the intervention (43%) and post intervention (41%). Between 2004 and 2006, the annual behavioural surveys showed only a slight increase in the overall proportion on MSM reporting having an HIV test in the last 12 months (2004 = 60.3%, 2005 = 61.4%, 2006 = 61.9%; χ2 = 0.34) CIs not provided |
0
| ||||
Hickson et al [19] England, UK | The association between awareness of the intervention and HIV testing weakened after adjusting for age-group, SHA of residence and relationship status, sexual partners and testing history, and exposures to other health promotion interventions (rate ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.45, p = 0.45) |
X
| ||||
Hilliam et al [23] Scotland, UK | Those aware of the intervention were more likely to have been tested in the last 6 months: Gaydar Sample: Aware = 33%; Not Aware = 16%; Non-Gaydar Sample: Aware = 38%; Not Aware = 9% (CIs not provided). Although testing in last 6 months is higher for those aware of the intervention, intervention awareness may not be the cause of the testing activity, as the act of obtaining a test may have led to intervention awareness (e.g. intervention posters may have be seen at the testing site) |
X
| ||||
Hirshfield et al. [26] United States of America | Among HIV-negative and untested men who completed follow-up (n = 1,116), 21% reported getting an HIV test; however there were no differences across study conditions or changes in HIV testing observed in any of the conditions. (Pooled videos OR = 1.33, CI 0.99-1.81; Webpage Behavior Change OR = 1.40, CI 0.76-2.62; No-Content Control Behavior Change OR = 1.35, CI 0.73-2.54) |
0
| ||||
James [20], England, UK | Promotion of NHTW led to 8,464 home sampling HIV tests being ordered in the two weeks leading up to and during NHTW compared to 618 orders in the three weeks before, but no data are presented on tests returned |
X
| ||||
McOwan et al. [15], England, UK | Number of MSM HIV testing at the intervention clinic rose from 65 in 1999 to 292 during the intervention, with a proportionately greater rise in the three groups targeted by the intervention, but no change in the total number of MSM tested at two comparison clinics for HIV during the intervention. The proportion stating that HIV testing uptake was in response to an advertisement, poster or leaflet increased from 1/65 in 1999 to 162/292 after the intervention (p = 0.001). CIs not provided |
X
| ||||
Pedrana et al. [29] Victoria, Australia | HIV testing rates increased during the initial intervention period (17%, p = 0.01), and during the continued intervention period (27%, p = 0.01), compared with the pre-intervention period. CIs not provided |
X
| ||||
Prati et al. [33] Italy | For MSM participants, the probability of undertaking HIV test did not change in the exposed (χ2(1) = 3.20, p = .074, r = .23; R = 4.63, F = 5.00, p = .063) and the unexposed subsample (χ2(1) = 0.00, p = .999, r = .00; R = 1.00, F = 1.00, p = .999) |
0
| ||||
Solorio et al. [27], Seattle, USA | From pre-intervention to mid-intervention, there were increases in intention to test (b = 1.1, 95% CI 0.3-2.0, p = 0.01), attitudes to testing (b = 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.5, p = 0.001) and average self-efficacy towards testing (b = 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.4, p = 0.004) and average injunctive norms to testing (b = 0.3, 95% CI 0.1.6, p = 0.01) No increase in HIV testing rates (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9–3.4, P = 0.1) |
X
| ||||
Tang et al. [34] China | In the crowdsourced intervention arm, 114 of 307 (37%) reported testing for HIV compared with 111 of 317 (35%) in the health marketing arm. For the complete case analysis, the estimated difference in proportions between arms was 2.1% (95% CI, −5.4% to 9.7%). Using multiple imputation, the estimated difference in proportions was 3.1% (95% CI, −4.5% to 10.7%). Significance values were not provided. Participants who watched the crowdsourced video more than once were more likely to test for HIV compared with those who watched the crowdsourced video only once, with a risk difference of 25.8% (95% CI, 15.0%–36.7%) |
X
| ||||
Thackeray et al. [28] USA | In the pilot phase, testing increased more than 300%, and service delivery partners increased their capacity to provide culturally appropriate testing services. Testing at participating organizations increased 153% among the target populations. Nearly 90% of youth surveyed said that the intervention had an impact on their decision to seek an HIV test (no data or statistical analyses provided) |
X
| ||||
West et al. [21] England, UK | The average MSM number of daily visits to the website increased from 250 to 600 per day and the POCT video was viewed 126 times during testing week. 43 asymptomatic attendees requested POCT, of which 21 were MSM and 15 reported that they attended as a result of the Grindr advertisement. (no data or statistical analyses provided) |
X
| ||||
Wilkinson et al. [30] Victoria, Australia | Although intervention awareness was high among 242 MSM completing 726 prospective surveys, intervention recall was not associated with self-reported HIV testing. Across surveys, between 42.6% and 53.2% of respondents correctly recalled DDU intervention messages, with authors reporting a moderate decline in DDU message recall between first (T-2) and most recent surveys (T0) (P = 0.49). Contemporaneous and lagged message recall was not associated with HIV testing in the 12 months before T0. The increases in the monthly testing trends for HIV and syphilis tests continued after DDU implementation, though modest. (differences in the slopes: 1.7 (−1.6 to 5.1) HIV testing observed pre- to post-DDU period suggests a continuation of trends rather than a shift toward more frequent testing among men |
0
|