Cargando…
“Our Choice” improves use of safer conception methods among HIV serodiscordant couples in Uganda: a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating two implementation approaches
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 w...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8048255/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33858462 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01109-z |
_version_ | 1783679187716931584 |
---|---|
author | Wagner, Glenn J. Wanyenze, Rhoda K. Beyeza-Kashesya, Jolly Gwokyalya, Violet Hurley, Emily Mindry, Deborah Finocchario-Kessler, Sarah Nanfuka, Mastula Tebeka, Mahlet G. Saya, Uzaib Booth, Marika Ghosh-Dastidar, Bonnie Linnemayr, Sebastian Staggs, Vincent S. Goggin, Kathy |
author_facet | Wagner, Glenn J. Wanyenze, Rhoda K. Beyeza-Kashesya, Jolly Gwokyalya, Violet Hurley, Emily Mindry, Deborah Finocchario-Kessler, Sarah Nanfuka, Mastula Tebeka, Mahlet G. Saya, Uzaib Booth, Marika Ghosh-Dastidar, Bonnie Linnemayr, Sebastian Staggs, Vincent S. Goggin, Kathy |
author_sort | Wagner, Glenn J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01109-z. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8048255 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80482552021-04-15 “Our Choice” improves use of safer conception methods among HIV serodiscordant couples in Uganda: a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating two implementation approaches Wagner, Glenn J. Wanyenze, Rhoda K. Beyeza-Kashesya, Jolly Gwokyalya, Violet Hurley, Emily Mindry, Deborah Finocchario-Kessler, Sarah Nanfuka, Mastula Tebeka, Mahlet G. Saya, Uzaib Booth, Marika Ghosh-Dastidar, Bonnie Linnemayr, Sebastian Staggs, Vincent S. Goggin, Kathy Implement Sci Research 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01109-z. BioMed Central 2021-04-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8048255/ /pubmed/33858462 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01109-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Wagner, Glenn J. Wanyenze, Rhoda K. Beyeza-Kashesya, Jolly Gwokyalya, Violet Hurley, Emily Mindry, Deborah Finocchario-Kessler, Sarah Nanfuka, Mastula Tebeka, Mahlet G. Saya, Uzaib Booth, Marika Ghosh-Dastidar, Bonnie Linnemayr, Sebastian Staggs, Vincent S. Goggin, Kathy “Our Choice” improves use of safer conception methods among HIV serodiscordant couples in Uganda: a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating two implementation approaches |
title | “Our Choice” improves use of safer conception methods among HIV serodiscordant couples in Uganda: a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating two implementation approaches |
title_full | “Our Choice” improves use of safer conception methods among HIV serodiscordant couples in Uganda: a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating two implementation approaches |
title_fullStr | “Our Choice” improves use of safer conception methods among HIV serodiscordant couples in Uganda: a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating two implementation approaches |
title_full_unstemmed | “Our Choice” improves use of safer conception methods among HIV serodiscordant couples in Uganda: a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating two implementation approaches |
title_short | “Our Choice” improves use of safer conception methods among HIV serodiscordant couples in Uganda: a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating two implementation approaches |
title_sort | “our choice” improves use of safer conception methods among hiv serodiscordant couples in uganda: a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating two implementation approaches |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8048255/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33858462 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01109-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wagnerglennj ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT wanyenzerhodak ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT beyezakashesyajolly ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT gwokyalyaviolet ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT hurleyemily ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT mindrydeborah ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT finocchariokesslersarah ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT nanfukamastula ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT tebekamahletg ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT sayauzaib ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT boothmarika ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT ghoshdastidarbonnie ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT linnemayrsebastian ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT staggsvincents ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches AT gogginkathy ourchoiceimprovesuseofsaferconceptionmethodsamonghivserodiscordantcouplesinugandaaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrialevaluatingtwoimplementationapproaches |