Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Human Immunodeficiency Virus | Protocol

Quantitative methods used to evaluate impact of health promotion interventions to prevent HIV infections: a methodological systematic review protocol

Authors: Andrainolo Ravalihasy, Lidia Kardaś-Słoma, Yazdan Yazdanpanah, Valéry Ridde

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Combination prevention is currently considered the best approach to combat HIV epidemic. It is based upon the combination of structural, behavioral, and biomedical interventions. Such interventions are frequently implemented in a health-promoting manner due to their aims, the approach that was adopted, and their complexity. The impact evaluation of these interventions often relies on methods inherited from the biomedical field. However, these methods have limitations and should be adapted to be relevant for these complex interventions. This systematic review aims to map the evidence-based methods used to quantify the impact of these interventions and analyze how these methods are implemented.

Methods

Three databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed) will be used to identify impact evaluation studies of health promotion interventions that aimed at reducing the incidence or prevalence of HIV infection. Only studies based on quantitative design assessing intervention impact on HIV prevalence or incidence will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen studies based on titles and abstracts and then on the full text. The information about study characteristics will be extracted to understand the context in which the interventions are implemented. The information specific to quantitative methods of impact evaluation will be extracted using items from the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), the guidelines for reporting Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature (SAMPL), and the guidelines for Strengthening The Reporting of Empirical Simulation Studies (STRESS). This review will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

Discussion

The impact evaluation of HIV prevention interventions is a matter of substantial importance given the growing need for evidence of the effectiveness of these interventions, whereas they are increasingly complex. These evaluations allow to identify the most effective strategies to be implemented to fight the epidemic. It is therefore relevant to map the methods to better implement them and adapt them according to the type of intervention to be evaluated.

Systematic review registration

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference World Health Organization (2007) Resolutions WHA 60.24 Health promotion in a globalized world. World Health Organization (2007) Resolutions WHA 60.24 Health promotion in a globalized world.
2.
go back to reference World Health Organization (2009) Resolutions WHA 62.14 Reducing health inequities through action on the social determinants of health. World Health Organization (2009) Resolutions WHA 62.14 Reducing health inequities through action on the social determinants of health.
3.
go back to reference McQueen DV, Anderson LM. Utiliser des données probantes pour évaluer l’efficacité de la promotion de la santé: quelques enjeux fondamentaux. Promot Educ. 2004;11:11–6.CrossRef McQueen DV, Anderson LM. Utiliser des données probantes pour évaluer l’efficacité de la promotion de la santé: quelques enjeux fondamentaux. Promot Educ. 2004;11:11–6.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference O’Neill M. Le débat international sur l’efficacité de la promotion de la santé: d’où vient-il et pourquoi est-il si important? Promot Educ. 2004;11:6–10.CrossRef O’Neill M. Le débat international sur l’efficacité de la promotion de la santé: d’où vient-il et pourquoi est-il si important? Promot Educ. 2004;11:6–10.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Piot P, Bartos M, Larson H, Zewdie D, Mane P. Coming to terms with complexity: a call to action for HIV prevention. Lancet. 2008;372:845–59.CrossRef Piot P, Bartos M, Larson H, Zewdie D, Mane P. Coming to terms with complexity: a call to action for HIV prevention. Lancet. 2008;372:845–59.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. Fast-tracking combination prevention. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2015. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. Fast-tracking combination prevention. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2015.
7.
go back to reference Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRef Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference World Health Organization (1986) Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. World Health Organization (1986) Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion.
9.
go back to reference Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess Winch Engl. 2003;7(iii–x):1–173. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess Winch Engl. 2003;7(iii–x):1–173.
10.
go back to reference Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6:245.CrossRef Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study. Syst Rev. 2017;6:245.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Lang TA, Altman DG. Basic statistical reporting for articles published in Biomedical Journals: the “Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature” or the SAMPL guidelines. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52:5–9.CrossRef Lang TA, Altman DG. Basic statistical reporting for articles published in Biomedical Journals: the “Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature” or the SAMPL guidelines. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52:5–9.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf. 2018;34:285–91. Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Educ Inf. 2018;34:285–91.
13.
go back to reference Monks T, Currie CSM, Onggo BS, Robinson S, Kunc M, Taylor SJE. Strengthening the reporting of empirical simulation studies: introducing the STRESS guidelines. J Simul. 2019;13:55–67.CrossRef Monks T, Currie CSM, Onggo BS, Robinson S, Kunc M, Taylor SJE. Strengthening the reporting of empirical simulation studies: introducing the STRESS guidelines. J Simul. 2019;13:55–67.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Montgomery P, Grant S, Mayo-Wilson E, et al. Reporting randomised trials of social and psychological interventions: the CONSORT-SPI 2018 extension. Trials. 2018;19:407.CrossRef Montgomery P, Grant S, Mayo-Wilson E, et al. Reporting randomised trials of social and psychological interventions: the CONSORT-SPI 2018 extension. Trials. 2018;19:407.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:361–6.CrossRef Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:361–6.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12:1495–9.CrossRef von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12:1495–9.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, Macaulay AC, Salsberg J, Jagosh J, et al. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49:47–53.CrossRef Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, Macaulay AC, Salsberg J, Jagosh J, et al. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49:47–53.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Souto RQ, Khanassov V, Hong QN, Bush PL, Vedel I, Pluye P. Systematic mixed studies reviews: updating results on the reliability and efficiency of the mixed methods appraisal tool. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52:500–1.CrossRef Souto RQ, Khanassov V, Hong QN, Bush PL, Vedel I, Pluye P. Systematic mixed studies reviews: updating results on the reliability and efficiency of the mixed methods appraisal tool. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52:500–1.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10:89.CrossRef Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10:89.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Cartwright N, Hardie J. Evidence-ranking schemes, advice guides, and choosing effective policies. In: Evid.-Based Policy Pract. Guide Doing It Better: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 135–43.CrossRef Cartwright N, Hardie J. Evidence-ranking schemes, advice guides, and choosing effective policies. In: Evid.-Based Policy Pract. Guide Doing It Better: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 135–43.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Gertler PJ, Martinez S, Premand P, Rawlings LB, Vermeersch CMJ. Impact Evaluation in Practice. 2nd ed: World Bank Publications; 2016.CrossRef Gertler PJ, Martinez S, Premand P, Rawlings LB, Vermeersch CMJ. Impact Evaluation in Practice. 2nd ed: World Bank Publications; 2016.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Van Belle S, Wong G, Westhorp G, Pearson M, Emmel N, Manzano A, et al. Can “realist” randomised controlled trials be genuinely realist? Trials. 2016;17:313.CrossRef Van Belle S, Wong G, Westhorp G, Pearson M, Emmel N, Manzano A, et al. Can “realist” randomised controlled trials be genuinely realist? Trials. 2016;17:313.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Deaton A, Cartwright N. Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Soc Sci Med. 2018;210:2–21.CrossRef Deaton A, Cartwright N. Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Soc Sci Med. 2018;210:2–21.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference McQueen DV, Anderson LM. What counts as evidence: issues and debates. In: Eval. Health Promot. Princ. Perspect., WHO Regional Publications: WHO Regional Office Europe; 2001. p. 63–81. McQueen DV, Anderson LM. What counts as evidence: issues and debates. In: Eval. Health Promot. Princ. Perspect., WHO Regional Publications: WHO Regional Office Europe; 2001. p. 63–81.
28.
go back to reference Potvin L, McQueen DV. Practical dilemmas for health promotion evaluation. In: Potvin L, McQueen DV, Hall M, de Salazar L, Anderson LM, Hartz ZMA, editors. Health Promot Eval. Pract. Am. Values Res. New York, NY: Springer; 2009. p. 25–45. Potvin L, McQueen DV. Practical dilemmas for health promotion evaluation. In: Potvin L, McQueen DV, Hall M, de Salazar L, Anderson LM, Hartz ZMA, editors. Health Promot Eval. Pract. Am. Values Res. New York, NY: Springer; 2009. p. 25–45.
29.
go back to reference de Salazar L, Hall M. Developing evaluation questions: beyond the technical issues. In: Potvin L, McQueen DV, Hall M, de Salazar L, Anderson LM, Hartz ZMA, editors. Health Promot. Eval. Pract. Am. Values Res. New York, NY: Springer; 2009. p. 49–62. de Salazar L, Hall M. Developing evaluation questions: beyond the technical issues. In: Potvin L, McQueen DV, Hall M, de Salazar L, Anderson LM, Hartz ZMA, editors. Health Promot. Eval. Pract. Am. Values Res. New York, NY: Springer; 2009. p. 49–62.
30.
go back to reference Kurth AE, Celum C, Baeten JM, Vermund SH, Wasserheit JN. Combination HIV prevention: significance, challenges, and opportunities. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2011;8:62–72.CrossRef Kurth AE, Celum C, Baeten JM, Vermund SH, Wasserheit JN. Combination HIV prevention: significance, challenges, and opportunities. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2011;8:62–72.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Johnson B, Christensen LB. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research. In: Educ. Res. Quant. Qual. Mix. Approaches. 7th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2020. p. 29–54. Johnson B, Christensen LB. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research. In: Educ. Res. Quant. Qual. Mix. Approaches. 7th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2020. p. 29–54.
32.
go back to reference Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. Strategic guidance for evaluating HIV prevention programmes. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2010. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. Strategic guidance for evaluating HIV prevention programmes. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2010.
Metadata
Title
Quantitative methods used to evaluate impact of health promotion interventions to prevent HIV infections: a methodological systematic review protocol
Authors
Andrainolo Ravalihasy
Lidia Kardaś-Słoma
Yazdan Yazdanpanah
Valéry Ridde
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01970-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Systematic Reviews 1/2022 Go to the issue