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

Glenn J Wagner, Rhoda K Wanyenze, Jolly Beyeza-Kashesya, Violet Gwokyalya, Emily Hurley, Deborah Mindry, Sarah Finocchario-Kessler, Mastula Nanfuka, Mahlet G Tebeka, Uzaib Saya, Marika Booth, Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar, Sebastian Linnemayr, Vincent S Staggs, Kathy Goggin
{"title":"\"Our Choice\" improves use of safer conception methods among HIV serodiscordant couples in Uganda: a cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating two implementation approaches.","authors":"Glenn J Wagner,&nbsp;Rhoda K Wanyenze,&nbsp;Jolly Beyeza-Kashesya,&nbsp;Violet Gwokyalya,&nbsp;Emily Hurley,&nbsp;Deborah Mindry,&nbsp;Sarah Finocchario-Kessler,&nbsp;Mastula Nanfuka,&nbsp;Mahlet G Tebeka,&nbsp;Uzaib Saya,&nbsp;Marika Booth,&nbsp;Bonnie Ghosh-Dastidar,&nbsp;Sebastian Linnemayr,&nbsp;Vincent S Staggs,&nbsp;Kathy Goggin","doi":"10.1186/s13012-021-01109-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03167879 ; date registered May 23, 2017.</p>","PeriodicalId":417097,"journal":{"name":"Implementation Science : IS","volume":" ","pages":"41"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s13012-021-01109-z","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation Science : IS","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01109-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

“我们的选择”改善了乌干达艾滋病毒血清不一致夫妇使用更安全的受孕方法:一项评估两种实施方法的聚类随机对照试验。
背景:安全受孕咨询(SCC)促进使用安全受孕方法(SCM)尚未成为常规计划生育或艾滋病毒护理的一部分。已经发表了使用SCM的指南,但是到目前为止还没有发表的SCC的对照评估。此外,目前尚不清楚在资源有限的情况下通常用于整合新服务的标准方法是否足够,或者加强培训和监督是否会导致实施SCC的更有效方法。方法:在一项混合、集群随机对照试验中,6家HIV诊所被随机分配实施SCC干预,我们选择使用高(SCC1)或低强度(SCC2)方法(通过培训和监督的数量区分)或现有的计划生育服务(常规护理)。389名考虑与艾滋病毒阴性伴侣生育的艾滋病毒患者参加了调查。主要结局是自我报告使用适当的生殖方法(如果试图怀孕;现代避孕药(如果没有)超过12个月或直到怀孕。结果:联合干预组采用适宜生殖方式的比例高于常规护理组[20.8% vs. 6.9%;调整OR (95% CI)=10.63 (2.79, 40.49)], SCC1报告的发生率高于SCC2 [27.1% vs. 14.6%;或(95% ci)=4.50(1.44, 14.01)]。在那些试图怀孕的患者中,干预组报告SCM使用的准确性高于常规护理组[24.1%对0%;OR (95% CI)=91.84 (4.94, 1709.0)], SCC1优于SCC2 [34.6% vs. 11.5%;Or (95% ci)=6.43(1.90, 21.73)]。在那些不打算怀孕的人群中,使用现代避孕方法的情况没有变化。在SCC1中获得准确使用SCM的人均成本估计为631美元,而在SCC2中为1014美元。结论:更密集的供应商培训和更频繁的监督导致更多人采用复杂的供应链管理行为,并且比标准的低强度实施方法更具成本效益。试验注册:Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03167879;注册日期2017年5月23日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信