AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 15, Issue 8, pp 1589–1595

Are Peer Interventions for HIV Efficacious? A Systematic Review

  • Jane M. Simoni
  • Kimberly M. Nelson
  • Julie C. Franks
  • Samantha S. Yard
  • Keren Lehavot
Substantive Review

Abstract

Behavioral interventions to prevent HIV or assist HIV-positive persons often incorporate peers, yet empirical support for their efficacy is only recently accumulating. We describe the results of a review of the global literature, identifying 117 studies evaluating the efficacy of peer-based interventions in the area of HIV/AIDS. About half were conducted in the developing world and half in Western nations. Across a range of populations and intervention modalities, the majority of studies provided some support for peer interventions according to outcome indicators in the domains of sexual risk behavior, attitudes and cognitions, HIV knowledge, and substance use. However, outcomes assessed using biomarkers and other non-self-report variables were less likely to indicate intervention efficacy. Overall, findings suggest that we can have some confidence in peer interventions, yet more data are needed demonstrating an effect in the most rigorous study designs and with outcomes that are not potentially affected by respondent bias.

Keywords

HIV Peer Intervention Review 

Resumen

Las intervenciones que pretenden cambiar el comportamiento para prevenir el VIH o para aydar a las personas infectadas por el VIH frecuentemente incluyen a los trabajadores no profesionales como promotores de salud, o “pares”. Sin embargo, los datos sobre la eficacia de las intervenciones que utilizan pares apenas están acumulando recientemente. Esta revisión sistemática describe los resultados de una revista de la literatura global, la cual identificó 117 estudios que evalúan la eficacia de las intervenciones basadas en pares relacionadas con el VIH. Aproximadamente la mitad de los estudios fueran llevados a cabo en los países en desarrollo y la mitad en los países desarrollados. Representando diversas poblaciones y tipos de intervenciones, la mayor parte de los estudios demuestra apoyo para el uso de pares, según resultados relacionados con comportamiento sexual riesgoso, las actitudes y la cognición, los conocimientos relacionados con el VIH, y el uso de sustancias. Sin embargo, los resultados medidos por datos biológicos y otros datos objetivos mostraron menos tendencia a indicar una intervención eficaz. En general, los resultados parcialmente apoyan el uso de las intervenciones basadas en pares pero todavía se precisan mas datos demostrando efectos en estudios de diseño riguroso y con resultados que no son limitados por un sesgo potencial de respuesta.

Supplementary material

10461_2011_9963_MOESM1_ESM.doc (546 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 545 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. AIDS epidemic update: Nov 2009. Geneva: WHO; 2009.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hall H, Song R, Rhodes P, et al. Estimation of HIV incidence in the United States. JAMA. 2008;300(5):520–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Walensky R. Cost-effectiveness of HIV interventions: from cohort studies and clinical trials to policy. Top HIV Med. 2009;17(4):130–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blower S, Gershengorn H, Grant R. A tale of two futures: HIV and antiretroviral therapy in San Francisco. Science. 2000;287(5453):650–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    United Nations General Assembly. Towards universal access: assessment by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS on scaling up HIV prevention, treatment, care and support. New York: United Nations; 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Report on work force capacity and HIV/AIDS. Washington: Office of the US Global AIDS Coordinator, U.S. Department of State; 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Health Organization. Scaling up HIV/AIDS care: service delivery and human resources perspectives. Geneva: WHO; 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    World Health Organization. Task shifting: rational redistribution of tasks among health workforce teams: global recommendations and guidelines. Geneva: WHO; 2008.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    World Health Organization. International conference on task shifting. Addis Ababa Declaration, 10 Jan 2008. Addis Ababa: WHO; 2008.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Celletti F, Wright A, Palen J, et al. Can the deployment of community health workers for the delivery of HIV services represent an effective and sustainable response to health workforce shortages? Results of a multicountry study. AIDS (Lond, Engl). 2010;24(Suppl 1):S45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wouters E. Mobilising the community in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Lancet. 2009;374(9700):1501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Health Resources and Services Administration. Service delivery and HIV-positive peers. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, HIV/AIDS Bureau; 2005. http://hab.hrsa.gov/publications/june5/. Accessed on 26 Jun 2009.
  13. 13.
    Simoni JM, Franks J, Lehavot K, Yard SS. Peer interventions to promote health: conceptual considerations. J Orthopsychiatry (in press).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    UNAIDS. Peer education and HIV/AIDS: concepts, uses, and challenges. Geneva: UNAIDS; 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Prevention of sexual transmission for people engaged in high risk activity. Washington; 2009.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Medley A, Kennedy C, O’Reilly K, Sweat M. Effectiveness of peer education interventions for HIV prevention in developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Educ Prev. 2009;21(3):181–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maticka-Tyndale E, Barnett JP. Peer-led interventions to reduce HIV risk of youth: a review. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2010;33(2):98–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rhodes SD, Foley KL, Zometa CS, Bloom FR. Lay health advisor interventions among Hispanics/Latinos: A Qualitative Systematic Review. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(5):418–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Webel AR, Okonsky J, Trompeta J, Holzemer WL. A systematic review of the effectiveness of peer-based interventions on health-related behaviors in adults. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(2):247–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deeks JJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG. Chapter 9: analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane Book Series. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kelly JA. Popular opinion leaders and HIV prevention peer education: resolving discrepant findings, and implications for the development of effective community programmes. AIDS Care. 2004;16(2):139–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cornish F, Campbell C. The social conditions for successful peer education: a comparison of two HIV prevention programs run by sex workers in India and South Africa. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;44(1–2):123–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane M. Simoni
    • 1
  • Kimberly M. Nelson
    • 1
  • Julie C. Franks
    • 2
  • Samantha S. Yard
    • 1
  • Keren Lehavot
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.ICAPMailman School of Public Health, Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations