A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative interviewing tools to investigate self-reported HIV and STI associated behaviours in low- and middle-income countries.


Phillips, AE; Gomez, GB; Boily, MC; Garnett, GP; (2010) A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative interviewing tools to investigate self-reported HIV and STI associated behaviours in low- and middle-income countries. International journal of epidemiology, 39 (6). pp. 1541-55. ISSN 0300-5771 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq114

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Studies identifying risks and evaluating interventions for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and other sexually transmitted infections often rely on self-reported measures of sensitive behaviours. Such self-reports can be subject to social desirability bias. Concerns over the accuracy of these measures have prompted efforts to improve the level of privacy and anonymity of the interview setting. This study aims to determine whether such novel tools minimize misreporting of sensitive information. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in low- and middle-income countries comparing traditional face-to-face interview (FTFI) with innovative tools for reporting HIV risk behaviour. Crude odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochran's chi-squared test of heterogeneity was performed to explore differences between estimates. Pooled estimates were determined by gender, region, education, setting and question time frame using a random effects model. We found and included 15 data sets in the meta-analysis. Most studies compared audio computer-assisted self interview (ACASI) with FTFI. There was significant heterogeneity across studies for three outcomes of interest: 'ever had sex' (I(2) = 93.4%, P < 0.001), non-condom use (I(2) = 89.3%, P < 0.001), and number of partners (I(2) = 75.3%, P < 0.001). For the fourth outcome, 'forced sex', there was homogenous increased reporting by non-FTFI methods (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.11-1.94). Overall, non-FTFI methods were not consistently associated with a significant increase in the reporting of all outcomes. However, there was increased reporting associated with non-FTFI with region (Asia), setting (urban), education (>60% had secondary education) and a shorter question time frame. Contrary to expectation, differences between FTFI and non-interviewer-administered interview methods for the reported sensitive behaviour investigated were not uniform. However, we observed trends and variations in the level of reporting according to the outcome, study and population characteristics. FTFI may not always be inferior to innovative interview tools depending on the sensitivity of the question as well as the population assessed.

Item Type: Article
Faculty and Department: Faculty of Public Health and Policy > Dept of Global Health and Development
PubMed ID: 20630991
Web of Science ID: 284952700022
URI: http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/2101853

Statistics


Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads since deposit
0Downloads
244Hits
Accesses by country - last 12 months
Accesses by referrer - last 12 months
Impact and interest
Additional statistics for this record are available via IRStats2

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item