Efficacy of peer-led interventions to reduce unprotected anal intercourse among men who have sex with men: a meta-analysis

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of peer-led interventions in reducing unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) among men who have sex with men (MSM). Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, pre- and post-intervention studies without control...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2014-03, Vol.9 (3), p.e90788-e90788
Main Authors: Ye, Shaodong, Yin, Lu, Amico, Rivet, Simoni, Jane, Vermund, Sten, Ruan, Yuhua, Shao, Yiming, Qian, Han-Zhu
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anal Canal - physiology
Coitus - physiology
Homosexuality, Male
Humans
Male
Medical research
Medicine
Meta-analysis
Peer Group
Publication Bias
Statistical analysis
Unsafe Sex - prevention & control
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of peer-led interventions in reducing unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) among men who have sex with men (MSM). Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, pre- and post-intervention studies without control groups, and serial cross-sectional assessments involving peers delivering interventions among MSM and published as of February 2012 were identified by systematically searching 13 electronic databases and cross-referencing. Effect sizes (ES) were calculated as the changes of standardized mean difference (SMD) in UAI between groups or pre-post intervention. A total of 22 studies met the eligibility criteria, including five RCTs, six quasi-experimental studies, six pre-and-post intervention studies, and five serial cross-sectional intervention studies. We used 15 individual studies including 17 interventions for overall ES calculation; peer-led interventions reduced UAI with any sexual partners in meta-analysis (mean ES: -0.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.41, -0.13; P
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0090788