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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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