AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 19, Issue 10, pp 1818–1827 | Cite as

Assessment of Contamination and Misclassification Biases in a Randomized Controlled Trial of a Social Network Peer Education Intervention to Reduce HIV risk Behaviors Among Drug Users and Risk Partners in Philadelphia, PA and Chiang Mai, Thailand

  • Nicole Simmons
  • Deborah Donnell
  • San-san Ou
  • David D. Celentano
  • Apinun Aramrattana
  • Annet Davis-Vogel
  • David Metzger
  • Carl Latkin
Original Paper

Abstract

Controlled trials of HIV prevention and care interventions are susceptible to contamination. In a randomized controlled trial of a social network peer education intervention among people who inject drugs and their risk partners in Philadelphia, PA and Chiang Mai, Thailand, we tested a contamination measure based on recall of intervention terms. We assessed the recall of test, negative and positive control terms among intervention and control arm participants and compared the relative odds of recall of test versus negative control terms between study arms. The contamination measures showed good discriminant ability among participants in Chiang Mai. In Philadelphia there was no evidence of contamination and little evidence of diffusion. In Chiang Mai there was strong evidence of diffusion and contamination. Network structure and peer education in Chiang Mai likely led to contamination. Recall of intervention materials can be a useful method to detect contamination in experimental interventions.

Keywords

Contamination HIV Prevention Injection drug use Social networks Diffusion 

Resumen

Ensayos controlados de intervenciones de prevención y atención del VIH son susceptibles a la contaminación. En un ensayo controlado aleatorio de una red social intervención de educación inter pares entre personas que se inyectan drogas y sus socios de riesgo en Filadelfia, PA y Chiang Mai, Tailandia, probamos una medida contaminación basada en el recuerdo de los términos de intervención. Se evaluó el recuerdo de la prueba, las condiciones de control negativos y positivos entre los participantes de la intervención y del brazo de control y se compararon las probabilidades relativas (OR) de retirada de prueba vs. términos de control negativo entre los brazos del estudio. Las medidas de contaminación mostraron buena capacidad discriminante entre los participantes en Chiang Mai. En Filadelfia no había pruebas de contaminación y poca evidencia de la difusión. En Chiang Mai hubo una fuerte evidencia de la difusión y la contaminación. Estructura de la red y la educación entre pares en Chiang Mai probablemente llevaron a la contaminación. Llamada a revisión de materiales de intervención puede ser un método útil para detectar la contaminación en las intervenciones experimentales.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) and sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, and Office of AIDS Research, of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through cooperative agreement U01-AI-46749 with Family Health International, U01-AI-46702 with Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, U01-AI-47984 with Johns Hopkins University, and U01-AI-48014 with the University of Pennsylvania. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Thira Sirisanthana MD, Tasanai Vongchak RN MPH, Namtip Srirak PhD, Antika Wongthanee, Kanokporn Wiboonnatakul, Lara Siree Johnson, and Chatsuda Auchieng.

References

  1. 1.
    Keogh-Brown MR, Bachmann MO, Shepstone L, et al. Contamination in trials of educational interventions. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(43):1–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tilgren P, Dignan M, Michielutte R. Assessment of contamination in a trial of community-based cancer education. Am J Health Behav. 1998;24(4):292–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ross MW, Chatterjee NS, Leonard L. A community level syphilis prevention programme: outcome data from a controlled trial. Sex Transm Inf. 2004;80:100–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moore GF, Williams A, Moore L, Murphy S. An exploratory cluster randomised trial of a university halls of residence based social norms marketing campaign to reduce alcohol consumption among 1st year students. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2013;8:15.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stewart-Brown S, Patterson J, Mockford C, Barlow J, Klimes I, Pyper C. Impact of a general practice based group parenting programme: quantitative and qualitative results from a controlled trial at 12 months. Arch Dis Child. 2004;89(6):519–25.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Courneya KS, Friedenreich CM, Sela RA, Quinney HA, Rhodes RE, Handman M. The group psychotherapy and home-based physical exercise (group-hope) trial in cancer survivors: physical fitness and quality of life outcomes. Psychooncology. 2003;12(4):357–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Sluijs EMF, van Poppel MNM, Twisk JWR, van Mechelen W. Physical activity measurements affected participants’ behavior in a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(4):404–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jones RB, Goldsmith L, Hewson P, Williams CJ. Recruitment to online therapies for depression: pilot cluster randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(3):e45.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doherty IA, Padian NS, Marlow C, Aral SO. Determinants and consequences of sexual networks as they affect the spread of sexually transmitted infections. J Infect Dis. 2005;191(Suppl 1):S42–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(4):370–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Christakis NA, Fowler JH. The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(21):2249–58.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Latkin CA, Sherman S. Knowlton A.HIV prevention among drug users: outcome of a network-oriented peer outreach intervention. Health Psychol. 2003;22(4):332–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Latkin CA, Mandell W, Vlahov D, Oziemkowska M, Celentano DD. The long-term outcome of a personal network-oriented HIV prevention intervention for injection drug users: the SAFE Study. Am J Community Psychol. 1996;24(3):341–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liljeros F, Edling CR, Nunes Amaral LA. Sexual networks: implications for the transmission of sexually transmitted infections. Microbes Infect. 2003;5(2):189–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palla G, Barabasi A-L, Vicsek T. Quantifying social group evolution. Nature. 2007;446:664–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doyle O, Hickey C. The challenges of contamination in evaluations of childhood interventions. Evaluation. 2013;19(2):183–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Latkin C, Donnell D, Metzger D, et al. The efficacy of a network intervention to reduce HIV risk behaviors among drug users and risk partners in Chiang Mai, Thailand and Philadelphia, USA. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:740–8.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lang DL, DiClemente RJ, Hardin JW, et al. Threats of cross-contamination on effects of a sexual risk reduction intervention: fact or fiction. Prev Sci. 2009;10(3):270–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robins JM. Correction for non-compliance in equivalence trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:269–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cuzick J, Edwards R, Segnan N. Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med. 1997;16:1017–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stuart EA, Perry DF, Le H-N, Ialongo NS. Estimating intervention effects of prevention programs: accounting for noncompliance. Prev Sci. 2008;9(4):288–98.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sussman JB, Hayward RA. An IV for the RCT: using instrumental variables to adjust for treatment contamination in randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c2073.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole Simmons
    • 1
  • Deborah Donnell
    • 2
  • San-san Ou
    • 2
  • David D. Celentano
    • 3
  • Apinun Aramrattana
    • 4
  • Annet Davis-Vogel
    • 5
  • David Metzger
    • 5
  • Carl Latkin
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of International HealthJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Statistical Center for HIV/AIDS Research and Prevention (SCHARP)SeattleUSA
  3. 3.Department of EpidemiologyJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Research Institute for Health SciencesChiang Mai UniversityChiang MaiThailand
  5. 5.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  6. 6.Department of HealthBehavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations