A randomised controlled trial of a telephone administered brief HIV risk reduction intervention amongst men who have sex with men prescribed post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV after sexual exposure in the UK: Project PEPSE

Behavioural intervention to reduce sexually transmitted infections in people aged 16–24 years in the UK: the safetxt RCT

Background

The prevalence of genital chlamydia and gonorrhoea is higher in the 16–24 years age group than those in other age group. With users, we developed the theory-based safetxt intervention to reduce sexually transmitted infections.

Objectives

To establish the effect of the safetxt intervention on the incidence of chlamydia/gonorrhoea infection at 1  year.

Design

A parallel-group, individual-level, randomised superiority trial in which care providers and outcome assessors were blinded to allocation.

Setting

Recruitment was from 92 UK sexual health clinics.

Participants

Inclusion criteria were a positive chlamydia or gonorrhoea test result, diagnosis of non-specific urethritis or treatment started for chlamydia/gonorrhoea/non-specific urethritis in the last 2 weeks; owning a personal mobile phone; and being aged 16–24 years.

Allocation

Remote computer-based randomisation with an automated link to the messaging system delivering intervention or control group messages.

Intervention

The safetxt intervention was designed to reduce sexually transmitted infection by increasing partner notification, condom use and sexually transmitted infection testing before sex with new partners. It employed educational, enabling and incentivising content delivered by 42–79 text messages over 1 year, tailored according to type of infection, gender and sexuality.

Comparator

A monthly message regarding trial participation.

Main outcomes

The primary outcome was the incidence of chlamydia and gonorrhoea infection at 12 months, assessed using nucleic acid amplification tests. Secondary outcomes at 1 and 12 months included self-reported partner notification, condom use and sexually transmitted infection testing prior to sex with new partner(s).

Results

Between 1 April 2016 and 23 November 2018, we assessed 20,476 people for eligibility and consented and randomised 6248 participants, allocating 3123 to the safetxt intervention and 3125 to the control. Primary outcome data were available for 4675 (74.8%) participants. The incidence of chlamydia/gonorrhoea infection was 22.2% (693/3123) in the intervention group and 20.3% (633/3125) in the control group (odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.31). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in any of the prespecified subgroups. Partner notification was 85.6% in the intervention group and 84.0% in the control group (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.33). At 12 months, condom use at last sex was 33.8% in the intervention group and 31.2% in the control group (odds ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.28) and condom use at first sex with most recent new partner was 54.4% in the intervention group and 48.7% in the control group (odds ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.45). Testing before sex with a new partner was 39.5% in the intervention group and 40.9% in the control group (odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.10). Having two or more partners since joining the trial was 56.9% in the intervention group and 54.8% in the control group (odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.24) and having sex with someone new since joining the trial was 69.7% in the intervention group and 67.4% in the control group (odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.28). There were no differences in safety outcomes. Additional sensitivity and per-protocol analyses showed similar results.

Limitations

Our understanding of the mechanism of action for the unanticipated effects is limited.

Conclusions

The safetxt intervention did not reduce chlamydia and gonorrhoea infections, with slightly more infections in the intervention group. The intervention increased condom use but also increased the number of partners and new partners. Randomised controlled trials are essential for evaluating health communication interventions, which can have unanticipated effects.

Future work

Randomised controlled trials evaluating novel interventions in this complex area are needed.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN64390461.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 11, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing HIV acquisition and transmission among gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in high income settings: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

HIV transmission continues among gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (GBMSM), with those who are younger, or recent migrants, or of minority ethnicity or who are gender diverse remaining at increased risk. We aimed to identify and describe recent studies evaluating the effectiveness of HIV prevention interventions for GBMSM in high income countries.

METHODS

We searched ten electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), conducted in high income settings, and published since 2013 to update a previous systematic review (Stromdahl et al, 2015). We predefined four outcome measures of interest: 1) HIV incidence 2) STI incidence 3) condomless anal intercourse (CLAI) (or measure of CLAI) and 4) number of sexual partners. We used the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK) Quality Appraisal of Intervention Studies tool to assess the quality of papers included in the review. As the trials contained a range of effect measures (e.g. odds ratio, risk difference) comparing the arms in the RCTs, we converted them into standardized effect sizes (SES) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

We identified 39 original papers reporting 37 studies. Five intervention types were identified: one-to-one counselling (15 papers), group interventions (7 papers), online interventions (9 papers), Contingency Management for substance use (2 papers) and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) (6 papers). The quality of the studies was mixed with over a third of studies rated as high quality and 11% rated as poor quality. There was some evidence that one-to-one counselling, group interventions (4-10 participants per group) and online (individual) interventions could be effective for reducing HIV transmission risk behaviours such as condomless anal intercourse. PrEP was the only intervention that was consistently effective at reducing HIV incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review of the recent evidence that we were able to analyse indicates that PrEP is the most effective intervention for reducing HIV acquisition among GBMSM. Targeted and culturally tailored behavioural interventions for sub-populations of GBMSM vulnerable to HIV infection and other STIs should also be considered, particularly for GBMSM who cannot access or decline to use PrEP.

Leveraging Resilience-supportive Strategies to Enhance Protective Factors in Young Sexual Minority Men: A Scoping Review of HIV Behavioral Interventions Implemented in High-income Countries

Behavioral HIV interventions focused on strengthening young sexual minority men's (SMM) internal (assets) and external (resources) protective factors are promising, yet their evaluation as resilience-supportive strategies to minimize or negate HIV-related risks remain understudied. The objective of this scoping review was to describe resilience-supportive intervention strategies that have been used to achieve desired HIV behavioral outcomes and to identify how these strategies have been evaluated using a resilience analytic framework. Our scoping review uncovered 271 peer-reviewed articles, of which 38 were eligible for inclusion based on our review criteria. The majority of interventions relied on social support strategies as their primary resilience-supportive strategy. A third of interventions reviewed analyzed their findings from a deficits-focused model, another third used compensatory resilience models, and the remaining interventions employed a hybrid (i.e., deficit and compensatory model) strategy. None of the interventions evaluated their intervention effects using a risk-protective model. From our synthesis regarding the current state of research around resilience-informed interventions, we propose strategies to inform the design of resilience-supportive approaches and make recommendations to move the field forward on how to develop, implement, and measure young SMM's resiliency processes.

Correction: A randomised controlled trial of a telephone administered brief HIV risk reduction intervention amongst men who have sex with men prescribed post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV after sexual exposure in the UK: Project PEPSE

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216855.].