E-health interventions targeting STIs, sexual risk, substance use and mental health among men who have sex with men: four systematic reviews

R. Meiksin, G. Melendez‐Torres, A. Miners, J. Falconer, T. Witzel, P. Weatherburn, C. Bonell
{"title":"E-health interventions targeting STIs, sexual risk, substance use and mental health among men who have sex with men: four systematic reviews","authors":"R. Meiksin, G. Melendez‐Torres, A. Miners, J. Falconer, T. Witzel, P. Weatherburn, C. Bonell","doi":"10.3310/brwr6308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Human immunodeficiency virus/sexually transmitted infections, sexual risk, substance (alcohol and other legal and illegal drugs) use and mental ill health constitute a ‘syndemic’ of mutually reinforcing epidemics among men who have sex with men. Electronic health (e-health) interventions addressing these epidemics among men who have sex with men might have multiplicative effects. To our knowledge, no systematic review has examined the effectiveness of such interventions on these epidemics among men who have sex with men.\n \n \n \n The objective was to synthesise evidence addressing the following: (1) What approaches and theories of change do existing e-health interventions employ to prevent human immunodeficiency virus/sexually transmitted infections, sexual risk, alcohol/drug use or mental ill health among men who have sex with men? (2) What factors influence implementation? (3) What are the effects of such interventions on the aforementioned epidemics? (4) Are such interventions cost-effective?\n \n \n \n A total of 24 information sources were searched initially (October–November 2018) [the following sources were searched: ProQuest Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts; Campbell Library; EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus, Wiley Online Library The Cochrane Library; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases (the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database); the Health Technology Assessment database; Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) database of health promotion research (Bibliomap); ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; OvidSP EconLit; OvidSP EMBASE; OvidSP Global Health; OvidSP Health Management Information Consortium; ProQuest International Bibliography of the Social Sciences; Ovid MEDLINE ALL; OvidSP PsycINFO; Web of Science Science Citation Index Expanded; Elsevier Scopus; OvidSP Social Policy & Practice; Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index Expanded; ProQuest Sociological Abstracts; ClinicalTrials.gov; World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; EPPI-Centre Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions; and the OpenGrey database], and an updated search of 19 of these was conducted in April 2020. Reference lists of included reports were searched and experts were contacted.\n \n \n \n Eligible reports presented theories of change and/or process, outcome and/or economic evaluations of e-health interventions offering ongoing support to men who have sex with men to prevent human immunodeficiency virus/sexually transmitted infections, sexual risk behaviour, alcohol/drug use and/or common mental illnesses. References were screened by title/abstract, then by full text. Data extraction and quality assessments used existing tools. Theory and process reports were synthesised using qualitative methods. Outcome and economic data were synthesised narratively; outcome data were meta-analysed.\n \n \n \n Original searches retrieved 27 eligible reports. Updated searches retrieved 10 eligible reports. Thirty-seven reports on 28 studies of 23 interventions were included: 33 on theories of change, 12 on process evaluations, 16 on outcome evaluations and one on an economic evaluation. Research question 1: five intervention types were identified – ‘online modular’, ‘computer games’ and ‘non-interactive’ time-limited/modular interventions, and open-ended interventions with ‘content organised by assessment’ and ‘general content’. Three broad types of intervention theories of change were identified, focusing on ‘cognitive/skills’, ‘self-monitoring’ and ‘cognitive therapy’. Research question 2: individual tailoring based on participant characteristics was particularly acceptable, and participants valued intervention content reflecting their experiences. Research question 3: little evidence was available of effects on human immunodeficiency virus or sexually transmitted infections. The analysis did not suggest that interventions were effective in reducing instances of human immunodeficiency virus or sexually transmitted infections. The overall meta-analysis for sexually transmitted infections reported a small non-significant increase in sexually transmitted infections in the intervention group, compared with the control group. Meta-analyses found a significant impact on sexual risk behaviour. The findings for drug use could not be meta-analysed because of study heterogeneity. Studies addressing this outcome did not present consistent evidence of effectiveness. Trials did not report effects on alcohol use or mental health. Research question 4: evidence on cost-effectiveness was limited.\n \n \n \n The quality of the eligible reports was variable and the economic synthesis was limited to one eligible study.\n \n \n \n There is commonality in intervention theories of change and factors affecting receipt of e-health interventions. Evidence on effectiveness is limited.\n \n \n \n Future trials should assess the impact of interventions on multiple syndemic factors, among them sexual risk, substance use and mental health; incorporate sufficient follow-up and sample sizes to detect the impact on human immunodeficiency virus/sexually transmitted infections; and incorporate rigorous process and economic evaluations.\n \n \n \n This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018110317.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32306,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/brwr6308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Human immunodeficiency virus/sexually transmitted infections, sexual risk, substance (alcohol and other legal and illegal drugs) use and mental ill health constitute a ‘syndemic’ of mutually reinforcing epidemics among men who have sex with men. Electronic health (e-health) interventions addressing these epidemics among men who have sex with men might have multiplicative effects. To our knowledge, no systematic review has examined the effectiveness of such interventions on these epidemics among men who have sex with men. The objective was to synthesise evidence addressing the following: (1) What approaches and theories of change do existing e-health interventions employ to prevent human immunodeficiency virus/sexually transmitted infections, sexual risk, alcohol/drug use or mental ill health among men who have sex with men? (2) What factors influence implementation? (3) What are the effects of such interventions on the aforementioned epidemics? (4) Are such interventions cost-effective? A total of 24 information sources were searched initially (October–November 2018) [the following sources were searched: ProQuest Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts; Campbell Library; EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus, Wiley Online Library The Cochrane Library; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases (the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database); the Health Technology Assessment database; Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) database of health promotion research (Bibliomap); ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; OvidSP EconLit; OvidSP EMBASE; OvidSP Global Health; OvidSP Health Management Information Consortium; ProQuest International Bibliography of the Social Sciences; Ovid MEDLINE ALL; OvidSP PsycINFO; Web of Science Science Citation Index Expanded; Elsevier Scopus; OvidSP Social Policy & Practice; Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index Expanded; ProQuest Sociological Abstracts; ClinicalTrials.gov; World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; EPPI-Centre Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions; and the OpenGrey database], and an updated search of 19 of these was conducted in April 2020. Reference lists of included reports were searched and experts were contacted. Eligible reports presented theories of change and/or process, outcome and/or economic evaluations of e-health interventions offering ongoing support to men who have sex with men to prevent human immunodeficiency virus/sexually transmitted infections, sexual risk behaviour, alcohol/drug use and/or common mental illnesses. References were screened by title/abstract, then by full text. Data extraction and quality assessments used existing tools. Theory and process reports were synthesised using qualitative methods. Outcome and economic data were synthesised narratively; outcome data were meta-analysed. Original searches retrieved 27 eligible reports. Updated searches retrieved 10 eligible reports. Thirty-seven reports on 28 studies of 23 interventions were included: 33 on theories of change, 12 on process evaluations, 16 on outcome evaluations and one on an economic evaluation. Research question 1: five intervention types were identified – ‘online modular’, ‘computer games’ and ‘non-interactive’ time-limited/modular interventions, and open-ended interventions with ‘content organised by assessment’ and ‘general content’. Three broad types of intervention theories of change were identified, focusing on ‘cognitive/skills’, ‘self-monitoring’ and ‘cognitive therapy’. Research question 2: individual tailoring based on participant characteristics was particularly acceptable, and participants valued intervention content reflecting their experiences. Research question 3: little evidence was available of effects on human immunodeficiency virus or sexually transmitted infections. The analysis did not suggest that interventions were effective in reducing instances of human immunodeficiency virus or sexually transmitted infections. The overall meta-analysis for sexually transmitted infections reported a small non-significant increase in sexually transmitted infections in the intervention group, compared with the control group. Meta-analyses found a significant impact on sexual risk behaviour. The findings for drug use could not be meta-analysed because of study heterogeneity. Studies addressing this outcome did not present consistent evidence of effectiveness. Trials did not report effects on alcohol use or mental health. Research question 4: evidence on cost-effectiveness was limited. The quality of the eligible reports was variable and the economic synthesis was limited to one eligible study. There is commonality in intervention theories of change and factors affecting receipt of e-health interventions. Evidence on effectiveness is limited. Future trials should assess the impact of interventions on multiple syndemic factors, among them sexual risk, substance use and mental health; incorporate sufficient follow-up and sample sizes to detect the impact on human immunodeficiency virus/sexually transmitted infections; and incorporate rigorous process and economic evaluations. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018110317. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
针对男男性行为者的性传播感染、性风险、药物使用和精神健康的电子保健干预措施:四项系统审查
人体免疫机能丧失病毒/性传播感染、性风险、物质(酒精和其他合法和非法药物)使用以及精神健康不良构成男男性行为者之间相互加强的流行病的"综合症"。针对男男性行为者中这些流行病的电子保健(电子保健)干预措施可能会产生倍增效应。据我们所知,还没有系统的审查审查这些干预措施对男男性行为者中这些流行病的有效性。目标是综合针对以下问题的证据:(1)现有电子保健干预措施采用了哪些方法和变革理论来预防男男性行为者中的人类免疫缺陷病毒/性传播感染、性风险、酒精/药物使用或精神疾病?(2)影响实施的因素是什么?(3)这些干预措施对上述流行病的影响是什么?(4)这些干预措施是否具有成本效益?初步检索了24个信息源(2018年10 - 11月)[检索了以下来源:ProQuest应用社会科学索引和摘要;坎贝尔库;护理与相关健康文献累加索引、Wiley在线图书馆、Cochrane图书馆;评价和传播数据库中心(效果评价摘要数据库和国民保健制度经济评价数据库);卫生技术评估数据库;政策和实践证据信息和协调中心(EPPI-Centre)健康促进研究数据库(Bibliomap);ProQuest全球学位论文;OvidSP EconLit;OvidSP EMBASE;OvidSP全球健康;健康管理信息联盟;ProQuest国际社会科学书目;奥维德MEDLINE;OvidSP PsycINFO;Web of Science科学引文索引扩展爱思唯尔斯高帕斯;社会政策与实践;Web of Science社会科学引文索引扩展社会学文摘;ClinicalTrials.gov;世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台;促进健康干预措施中心试验登记册;和OpenGrey数据库],并于2020年4月对其中19个进行了更新搜索。检索了纳入报告的参考文献列表,并联系了专家。合格的报告介绍了为男男性行为者提供持续支持以预防人体免疫缺陷病毒/性传播感染、性风险行为、酒精/药物使用和/或常见精神疾病的电子保健干预措施的变革理论和/或过程、结果和/或经济评价。参考文献按标题/摘要筛选,然后按全文筛选。数据提取和质量评估使用现有工具。采用定性方法综合理论和工艺报告。结果和经济数据以叙述的方式综合;结果数据进行meta分析。原始搜索检索到27个符合条件的报告。更新的搜索检索到10个符合条件的报告。其中包括关于23项干预措施的28项研究的37份报告:33份关于变革理论,12份关于过程评估,16份关于结果评估,1份关于经济评估。研究问题1:确定了五种干预类型-“在线模块化”,“电脑游戏”和“非交互式”限时/模块化干预,以及“由评估组织的内容”和“一般内容”的开放式干预。三种类型的改变干预理论被确定,重点是“认知/技能”,“自我监控”和“认知治疗”。研究问题2:基于参与者特征的个性化定制特别可接受,参与者重视反映其经验的干预内容。研究问题3:几乎没有证据表明对人体免疫缺陷病毒或性传播感染有影响。该分析并未表明干预措施在减少人类免疫缺陷病毒或性传播感染方面是有效的。性传播感染的整体荟萃分析报告,与对照组相比,干预组的性传播感染略有不显著增加。荟萃分析发现,这对性风险行为有显著影响。由于研究的异质性,不能对药物使用的结果进行meta分析。针对这一结果的研究没有提供一致的有效性证据。试验没有报告对酒精使用或心理健康的影响。研究问题4:关于成本效益的证据有限。合格报告的质量是可变的,经济综合仅限于一项合格的研究。在改变干预理论和影响接受电子卫生干预的因素方面存在共性。有效性的证据有限。 未来的试验应评估干预措施对多种综合征因素的影响,其中包括性风险、药物使用和精神健康;纳入充分的后续行动和样本量,以查明对人体免疫机能丧失病毒/性传播感染的影响;并结合严格的流程和经济评估。本研究注册号为PROSPERO CRD42018110317。该项目由国家卫生研究所(NIHR)公共卫生研究方案资助,将全文发表在《公共卫生研究》上;第10卷第4期请参阅NIHR期刊图书馆网站了解更多项目信息。
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
11
审稿时长
46 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信