IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i7p2262-d337951.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematic Review of Peer-Reviewed Literature on Global Condom Promotion Programs

Author

Listed:
  • William D. Evans

    (Milken Institute School of Public Health and The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA)

  • Alec Ulasevich

    (Independent Consultant, Silver Spring, MD 20902, USA)

  • Megan Hatheway

    (Milken Institute School of Public Health and The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA)

  • Bidia Deperthes

    (United Nations Family Planning Agency, New York, NY 10017, USA)

Abstract

Background : Globally, 1.7 million people were newly infected with HIV in 2018. Condoms are inexpensive, cost-effective, reduce HIV/STI incidence, morbidity, mortality, and unintended pregnancies, and result in health care cost savings. Given the rapid increase in at-risk adolescent and young adult (AYA) populations in countries with high HIV/STI prevalence as well as the reductions in donor support, promoting consistent condom use remains crucial. We synthesized all peer-reviewed literature on condom promotion programs with a focus on promotion in low and lower middle income (LMIC) countries and with AYA users. Methods : We systematically reviewed the published literature. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methods, we identified 99 articles published between 2000–2019. Results : Condom promotion programs were generally effective in changing attitudes, social norms, and beliefs in favor of condom use, and 85% demonstrated positive effects on multiple condom use measures. Programs targeting AYA were at least equally as effective as those targeting others and often showed greater use of best practices, such as mass media (66%) and audience segmentation (31%). We also saw differences between programs in the intervention strategies they used and found greater effects of marketing strategies on AYA compared to the overall sample. Conclusion : Condoms remain essential to prevention, and donor support must be maintained to combat the HIV/STI epidemic.

Suggested Citation

  • William D. Evans & Alec Ulasevich & Megan Hatheway & Bidia Deperthes, 2020. "Systematic Review of Peer-Reviewed Literature on Global Condom Promotion Programs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-21, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2262-:d:337951
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2262/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2262/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Crosby, R. & DiClemente, R.J. & Charnigo, R. & Snow, G. & Troutman, A., 2009. "A brief, clinic-based, safer sex intervention for heterosexual African American men newly diagnosed with an STD: a randomized controlled trial," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(S1), pages 96-103.
    2. Robert Brent, 2009. "A cost-benefit analysis of a condom social marketing programme in Tanzania," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 497-509.
    3. William Evans & Kuyosh Kadirov & Ibou Thior & Ramakrishnan Ganesan & Alec Ulasevich & Bidia Deperthes, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Condoms among Men in Sub-Saharan Africa," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Ashraf, Nava & Bandiera, Oriana & Jack, B. Kelsey, 2014. "No margin, no mission? A field experiment on incentives for public service delivery," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-17.
    5. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    6. anonymous, 2005. "What is driving oil prices? real-world demand and supply," Inside the Vault, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Spring.
    7. Terris-Prestholt, Fern & Windmeijer, Frank, 2016. "How to sell a condom? The impact of demand creation tools on male and female condom sales in resource limited settings," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 107-120.
    8. Scott-Sheldon, Lori A.J. & Glasford, Demis E. & Marsh, Kerry L. & Lust, Sarah A., 2006. "Barriers to condom purchasing: Effects of product positioning on reactions to condoms," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(11), pages 2755-2769, December.
    9. Burke, R.C. & Wilson, J. & Bernstein, K.T. & Grosskopf, N. & Murrill, C. & Cutler, B. & Sweeney, M. & Begier, E.M., 2009. "The NYC condom: Use and acceptability of New York City's Branded condom," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(12), pages 2178-2180.
    10. Yuri Osipov, 2005. "What Is Economics And All That It Is Today," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 1(1), pages 1-9.
    11. Agha, S., 2001. "Intention to use the female condom following a mass-marketing campaign in Lusaka, Zambia," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 91(2), pages 307-310.
    12. Martínez-Donate, A.P. & Zellner, J.A. & Sañudo, F. & Fernandez-Cerdeño, A. & Hovell, M.F. & Sipan, C.L. & Engelberg, M. & Carrillo, H., 2010. "Hombres sanos: Evaluation of a social marketing campaign for heterosexually identified latino men who have sex with men and women," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(12), pages 2532-2540.
    13. McCool-Myers, Megan, 2019. "Implementing condom distribution programs in the United States: Qualitative insights from program planners," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 20-26.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cassidy, Rachel & Groot Bruinderink, Marije & Janssens, Wendy & Morsink, Karlijn, 2021. "The power to protect: Household bargaining and female condom use," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    2. M Reuel Friedman & Chongyi Wei & Mary Lou Klem & Anthony J Silvestre & Nina Markovic & Ron Stall, 2014. "HIV Infection and Sexual Risk among Men Who Have Sex with Men and Women (MSMW): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, January.
    3. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    4. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    5. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    6. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    7. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    8. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    9. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    10. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    11. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    12. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    13. Ding Zhu & Mindan Wu & Yuan Cao & Shihua Lin & Nanxia Xuan & Chen Zhu & Wen Li & Huahao Shen, 2018. "Heated humidification did not improve compliance of positive airway pressure and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    14. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    15. Wesam Salah Alaloul & Muhammad Altaf & Muhammad Ali Musarat & Muhammad Faisal Javed & Amir Mosavi, 2021. "Systematic Review of Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavement and a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-38, April.
    16. Claudia Peters & Agnessa Kozak & Albert Nienhaus & Anja Schablon, 2020. "Risk of Occupational Latent Tuberculosis Infection among Health Personnel Measured by Interferon-Gamma Release Assays in Low Incidence Countries—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, January.
    17. Sehee Kim & Mihyeon Park & Sukhee Ahn, 2022. "The Impact of Antepartum Depression and Postpartum Depression on Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 31(5), pages 866-880, June.
    18. Habarurema Jean Baptiste & Yan Guang Cai & A. Y. M. Atiquil Islam & Nzabalirwa Wenceslas, 2022. "A Systematic Review of University Social Responsibility in Post-Conflict Societies: The Case of the Great Lakes Region of East Africa," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 439-475, November.
    19. Yafei Shen & Weide Shao, 2022. "Influence of Hybrid Pedagogical Models on Learning Outcomes in Physical Education: A Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-16, August.
    20. Nicola Andreij Rieg & Birgitta Gatersleben & Ian Christie, 2021. "Organizational Change Management for Sustainability in Higher Education Institutions: A Systematic Quantitative Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2262-:d:337951. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.