"Our Choice" improves use of safer conception methods among HIV serodiscordant couples in Uganda: a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating two implementation approaches

Economic evaluations performed alongside randomized implementation trials in clinical settings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Economic evaluations alongside implementation trials compare the outcomes and costs of competing implementation strategies to identify the most efficient strategies. The aims of this systematic review were to investigate how economic evaluations are performed in randomized implementation trials in clinical settings and to assess the quality of these evaluations.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted on 23 March 2023 to identify studies that reported on economic evaluations embedded in randomized implementation trials in clinical settings. A systematic search was applied across seven databases, and references of relevant reviews were screened for additional studies. The Drummond Checklist was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of included economic evaluations. Study characteristics and quality assessments were tabulated and described.

RESULTS

Of the 6,550 studies screened for eligibility, 10 met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were published between 1990 and 2022 and from North America, the United Kingdom, Europe, and Africa. Most studies were conducted in the primary and out-patient care setting. Implementation costs included materials, staffing, and training, and the most common approach to collecting implementation costs was obtaining expense and budget reports. Included studies scored medium to high in terms of economic methodological quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evidence is particularly useful for healthcare funders and service providers to inform the prioritization of implementation efforts in the context of limited resources and competing demands. The relatively small number of studies identified may be due to lack of guidance on how to conduct economic evaluations alongside implementation trials and the lack of standardized terminology used to describe implementation strategies in clinical research. We discuss these methodological gaps and present recommendations for embedding economic evaluations in implementation trials. First, reporting implementation strategies used in clinical trials and aligning these strategies with implementation outcomes and costs are an important advancement in clinical research. Second, economic evaluations of implementation trials should follow guidelines for standard clinical trial economic evaluations and adopt an appropriate costing and data collection approach. Third, hybrid trial designs are recommended to generate evidence for effective and cost-effective implementation strategies alongside clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023410186).

Preventing HIV and achieving pregnancy among HIV sero-different couples: Pilot study of a safer conception intervention in Zimbabwe

Safer conception services are needed to minimize HIV transmission among HIV sero-different couples desiring pregnancy. Few studies have evaluated the choices couples make when offered multiple safer conception methods or real-world method acceptability and effectiveness. We piloted a comprehensive safer conception program (Clintrials.gov identifier: NCT03049176) for HIV sero-different couples planning pregnancy in Zimbabwe to measure feasibility, method uptake, acceptability, pregnancy outcome, and HIV transmission. This study was not designed to compare rates of HIV transmission by safer conception method choice but rather to understand choices couples make when seeking to minimize risk of HIV transmission and maximize likelihood of pregnancy. Couples in this prospective, non-randomized study were given a choice of one or more currently available safer conception methods: antiretroviral therapy (ART) with monthly viral load (VL) monitoring for the HIV-positive partner (ART/VL), pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the HIV-negative partner, vaginal insemination (VI) for couples with an HIV-positive woman, and semen washing (SW) for couples with an HIV-positive man. Couples were followed monthly for up to 12 months of pregnancy attempts, quarterly during pregnancy, and 12 weeks post-partum. At each visit, data on method use, urine for pregnancy testing, and blood for HIV antibody testing, or viral load if HIV-positive, were obtained. Infants born to HIV-positive women were tested for HIV at 6 and 12 weeks. Between March 2017 and June 2019, 46 individuals from 23 HIV sero-different partnerships were enrolled and followed. At enrollment, all couples chose ART/VL, and all couples chose at least one additional method; 74% chose PrEP, 36% chose SW, and 25% chose VI. During pre-pregnancy follow-up visits, three couples discontinued SW, and one couple discontinued VI; all four of these couples opted for ART/VL plus PrEP. Satisfaction with safer conception methods was high among those who chose ART/VL and PrEP. Twelve couples achieved pregnancy. There were no cases of HIV transmission to partners, and no infants tested positive for HIV. This safer conception program is feasible and acceptable, allowing sero-different couples to safely achieve pregnancy. Sero-different couples in Zimbabwe seek a combination of HIV prevention methods, particularly ART/VL plus PrEP. Trial Registration: Clintrials.gov, NCT03049176.

Results of a multi-site pragmatic hybrid type 3 cluster randomized trial comparing level of facilitation while implementing an intervention in community-dwelling disabled and older adults in a Medicaid waiver

Background

Evidence-based interventions that optimize physical function for disabled and older adults living in the community who have difficulty with daily living tasks are available. However, uptake has been limited, particularly in resource-constrained (Medicaid) settings. Facilitation may be an effective implementation strategy. This study’s aim was to compare internal facilitation (IF) versus IF and external facilitation (EF) on adoption and sustainability of an intervention in a Medicaid home and community-based waiver.

Methods

In a hybrid type 3 trial, waiver sites (N = 18) were randomly assigned to implement the intervention using a bundle of strategies with either IF or IF and EF. Adoption and sustainability were assessed via Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC) for each site. Clinician attitudes toward evidence-based practice and self-efficacy were evaluated among 539 registered nurses, social workers, and occupational therapists. Medicaid beneficiary outcomes of activities of daily living, depression, pain, falls, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations were evaluated in a sample of N = 7030 as reflected by electronic health records data of the Medicaid waiver program. Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare outcomes between trial arms while accounting for cluster-randomized design.

Results

The mean SIC scores were 72.22 (standard deviation [SD] = 16.98) in the IF arm (9 sites) and 61.33 (SD = 19.29) in the IF + EF arm (9 sites). The difference was not statistically significant but corresponded to the medium clinically important effect size Cohen’s d = 0.60. Clinician implementation outcomes of attitudes and self-efficacy did not differ by trial arm. Beneficiary depression was reduced significantly in the IF + EF arm compared to the IF arm (p = .04, 95% confidence interval for the difference [0.01, 0.24]). No differences between trial arms were found for other beneficiary outcomes.

Conclusions

Level of facilitation did not enhance capacity for adoption and sustainability of an evidence-based intervention in a Medicaid setting that cares for disabled and older adults. Improved beneficiary depression favored use of IF and EF compared to IF alone, and no differences were found for other outcomes. These findings also suggest level of facilitation may not have impacted beneficiary outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03634033; date registered August 16, 2018.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01232-5.

Untapped Potential for Safer Conception Messaging to Transform PrEP Rollout and Promote Service Engagement Among Serodiscordant Couples

Uptake of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) fell short of targets for Sub-Saharan Africa's initial rollout, revealing the need for more effective promotion strategies. In Uganda, we explored potential benefits and challenges of integrating safer conception messaging to promote PrEP among serodiscordant couples. In-depth interviews were conducted with clients and personnel at three clinics and analyzed thematically. Participants (n = 58) valued PrEP as a safer conception method (SCM) but described lack of integration of safer conception and PrEP services as well as inconsistent practices in prescribing PrEP to couples pursuing conception. Participants reported that the wider population remains largely unaware of PrEP and SCM or harbors misconceptions that PrEP is primarily for highly stigmatized groups like sex workers. Participants further described how heterosexual couples can still be reluctant to test for HIV, unaware of tools like PrEP and SCM that would allow them to continue their relationship and/or pursuit of childbearing. Overall, findings suggest that integrating PrEP and SCM in messaging and services targeting serodiscordant couples holds untapped benefits throughout the HIV prevention cascade.

Social network-based group intervention to promote HIV prevention in Uganda: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial of Game Changers

INTRODUCTION

Innovative strategies are needed to disseminate HIV prevention messages across communities efficiently, as well as reduce HIV stigma while promoting HIV prevention. This randomized controlled trial will evaluate the efficacy of a social network-based group intervention, Game Changers, which trains persons living with HIV (PLWH) to encourage members of their social network to use HIV protective behaviors METHODS: PLWH in HIV care for at least 1 year will be randomly assigned to receive the 8-session group advocacy training intervention or no-intervention control group. Each enrolled PLWH (index participant) will be asked to recruit up to four social network members (alter participant). Assessments will be administered at baseline and months 6, 12, and 18 to both index and alter participants. The primary outcomes are HIV testing and condom use among alter participants; secondary outcomes are engagement in HIV prevention advocacy and internalized HIV stigma among index participants. Repeated-measures multivariable regression analyses will be conducted to compare outcomes between the intervention and control arms, in addition to a cost-effectiveness evaluation.

DISCUSSION

This social network-based approach to HIV prevention is particularly timely in the era of biomedical interventions, which require widespread penetration of effective HIV prevention and care messaging into communities. Positioning PLWH as central to the solution for controlling (vs. causing) the HIV epidemic has the potential to reduce HIV stigma and improve prevention outcomes at the individual and network levels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NIH Clinical Trial Registry NCT05098015. Registered on October 18, 2021.

The Effect of Integration of Family Planning Into HIV Services on Contraceptive Use Among Women Accessing HIV Services in Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

There is substantial unmet need for family planning (FP) among women living with HIV (WLHIV), leading to unintended pregnancies and may contribute indirectly to increasing the risk of transmission of HIV. This review aims to determine whether integration of FP into HIV testing and care results in increased use of contraception, a reduction in unmet need for FP, improved use of safer conception methods and a reduction in unintended pregnancies in low and middle-income countries. A systematic review was undertaken incorporating studies from PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Global Health, the International AIDS Society Abstract Archive, the World STI & HIV Congress Abstract Archive and the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections Abstract Archive published between 2016 and 2021, updating previous systematic reviews. After screening, 13 studies were included, 11 conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and 2 in India. The primary outcome of the review was contraceptive uptake and secondary outcomes included unmet need for FP, safer conception and unintended pregnancy. Integrated FP-HIV facilities were found to increase dual contraceptive use by at least 8% in five studies and modern contraceptive use by at least 8% in four studies. Findings from two studies suggested integration decreased the unmet need for contraception. Limited data prevented a conclusion from being drawn regarding whether integration increases safer conception. There was no evidence of integration reducing unintended pregnancies. The median quality score of studies was 3/9. Overall, integrated facilities have the potential of improving reproductive health of women accessing HIV services in LMICs. FP may be enhanced by including a safer conception component for WLHIV.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021251008, identifier: CRD42021251008.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Integrating HIV services and other health services: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Integration of HIV services with other health services has been proposed as an important strategy to boost the sustainability of the global HIV response. We conducted a systematic and comprehensive synthesis of the existing scientific evidence on the impact of service integration on the HIV care cascade, health outcomes, and cost-effectiveness.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We reviewed the global quantitative empirical evidence on integration published between 1 January 2010 and 10 September 2021. We included experimental and observational studies that featured both an integration intervention and a comparator in our review. Of the 7,118 unique peer-reviewed English-language studies that our search algorithm identified, 114 met all of our selection criteria for data extraction. Most of the studies (90) were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, primarily in East Africa (55) and Southern Africa (24). The most common forms of integration were (i) HIV testing and counselling added to non-HIV services and (ii) non-HIV services added to antiretroviral therapy (ART). The most commonly integrated non-HIV services were maternal and child healthcare, tuberculosis testing and treatment, primary healthcare, family planning, and sexual and reproductive health services. Values for HIV care cascade outcomes tended to be better in integrated services: uptake of HIV testing and counselling (pooled risk ratio [RR] across 37 studies: 1.67 [95% CI 1.41-1.99], p < 0.001), ART initiation coverage (pooled RR across 19 studies: 1.42 [95% CI 1.16-1.75], p = 0.002), time until ART initiation (pooled RR across 5 studies: 0.45 [95% CI 0.20-1.00], p = 0.050), retention in HIV care (pooled RR across 19 studies: 1.68 [95% CI 1.05-2.69], p = 0.031), and viral suppression (pooled RR across 9 studies: 1.19 [95% CI 1.03-1.37], p = 0.025). Also, treatment success for non-HIV-related diseases and conditions and the uptake of non-HIV services were commonly higher in integrated services. We did not find any significant differences for the following outcomes in our meta-analyses: HIV testing yield, ART adherence, HIV-free survival among infants, and HIV and non-HIV mortality. We could not conduct meta-analyses for several outcomes (HIV infections averted, costs, and cost-effectiveness), because our systematic review did not identify sufficient poolable studies. Study limitations included possible publication bias of studies with significant or favourable findings and comparatively weak evidence from some world regions and on integration of services for key populations in the HIV response.

CONCLUSIONS

Integration of HIV services and other health services tends to improve health and health systems outcomes. Despite some scientific limitations, the global evidence shows that service integration can be a valuable strategy to boost the sustainability of the HIV response and contribute to the goal of 'ending AIDS by 2030', while simultaneously supporting progress towards universal health coverage.

Demonstration and acceptability of a safer conception intervention for men with HIV in South Africa (Preprint)

Background

Many men with HIV (MWH) want to have children. HIV viral suppression minimizes sexual HIV transmission risks while allowing for conception and optimization of the health of men, their partners, and their infants.

Objective

This study developed and evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention to promote serostatus disclosure, antiretroviral therapy (ART) uptake and adherence, and viral suppression among MWH who want to have children in South Africa.

Methods

We developed a safer conception intervention (Sinikithemba Kwabesilisa or We give hope to men) to promote viral suppression via ART uptake and adherence, HIV serostatus disclosure, and other safer conception strategies for MWH in South Africa. Through 3 counseling and 2 booster sessions over 12 weeks, we offered education on safer conception strategies and aided participants in developing a safer conception plan. We recruited MWH (HIV diagnosis known for >1 month), not yet accessing ART or accessing ART for <3 months, in a stable partnership with an HIV-negative or unknown-serostatus woman, and wanting to have a child in the following year. We conducted an open pilot study to evaluate acceptability based on patient participation and exit interviews and feasibility based on recruitment and retention. In-depth exit interviews were conducted with men to explore intervention acceptability. Questionnaires collected at baseline and exit assessed disclosure outcomes; CD4 and HIV-RNA data were used to evaluate preliminary impacts on clinical outcomes of interest.

Results

Among 31 eligible men, 16 (52%) enrolled in the study with a median age of 29 (range 27-44) years and a median time-since-diagnosis of 7 months (range 1 month to 9 years). All identified as Black South African, with 56% (9/16) reporting secondary school completion and 44% (7/16) reporting full-time employment. Approximately 44% (7/16) of participants reported an HIV-negative (vs unknown-serostatus) partner. Approximately 88% (14/16) of men completed the 3 primary counseling sessions. In 11 exit interviews, men reported personal satisfaction with session content and structure while also suggesting that they would refer their peers to the program. They also described the perceived effectiveness of the intervention and self-efficacy to benefit. Although significance testing was not conducted, 81% (13/16) of men were taking ART at the exit, and 100% (13/13) of those on ART were virally suppressed at 12 weeks. Of the 16 men, 12 (75%) reported disclosure to pregnancy partners.

Conclusions

These preliminary data suggest that safer conception care is acceptable to men and has the potential to reduce HIV incidence among women and their children while supporting men’s health. Approximately half of the men who met the screening eligibility criteria were enrolled. Accordingly, refinement to optimize uptake is needed. Providing safer conception care and peer support at the community level may help reach men.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03818984; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03818984

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-017-1719-4