Author
Listed:
- Sunguya, B.F.
- Munisamy, M.
- Pongpanich, S.
- Yasuoka, J.
- Jimba, M.
Abstract
Background. HIV advocacy programs are partly responsible for the global community's success in reducing the burden of HIV. The rising wave of the globalburdenofnoncommunicablediseases (NCDs)has promptedtheWorld Health Organization to espouse NCD advocacy efforts as a possible preventive strategy. HIV and NCDs share some similarities in their chronicity and risky behaviors, which are their associated etiology. Therefore, pooled evidence on the effectiveness ofHIV advocacy programs and ideas shared could be replicated and applied during the conceptualization of NCD advocacy programs. Such evidence, however, has not been systematically reviewed to address the effectiveness of HIV advocacy programs, particularly programs that aimed at changing public behaviors deemed as risk factors. Objectives. To determine the effectiveness of HIV advocacy programs and draw lessons from those that are effective to strengthen future noncommunicable disease advocacy programs. Search methods. We searched for evidence regarding the effectiveness of HIV advocacy programs in medical databases: PubMed, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus, Educational Resources and Information Center, andWeb of Science, with articles dated from 1994 to 2014. Search criteria. The review protocol was registered before this review. The inclusion criteria were studies on advocacy programs or interventions. We selected studies with the following designs: randomized controlled design studies, pre-post intervention studies, cohorts and other longitudinal studies, quasi-experimental design studies, and cross-sectional studies that reported changes in outcome variables of interest following advocacy programs. We constructed Boolean search terms and used them in PubMed as well as other databases, in line with a population, intervention, comparator, and outcome question. The flow of evidence search and reporting followed the standard Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Data collection and analysis. We selected 2 outcome variables (i.e., changing social norms and a change in impact) out of 6 key outcomes of advocacy interventions.We assessed the riskof bias for all selected studies by using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized studies and using the Risk of Bias for Nonrandomized Observational Studies for observational studies. We did not grade the collective quality of evidence because of differences between the studies, with regard to methods, study designs, and context. Moreover, we could not carry out meta-analyses because of heterogeneity and the diverse study designs; thus,we used a narrative synthesis to report the findings. Main results. Atotal of25studieswereeligible, ofthe1463studies retrieved from selected databases. Twenty-two of the studies indicated a shift in social norms as a result of HIV advocacyprograms, and3indicateda changein impact. We drew 6 lessons from these programs that may be useful for noncommunicable disease advocacy: (1) involving at-risk populations in advocacy programs, (2) working with laypersons and community members, (3) working with peer advocates and activists, (4) targeting specific age groups and asking support from celebrities, (5) targeting several, but specific, risk factors, and (6) using an evidence-based approach through formative research. Author conclusions. HIV advocacy programs have been effective in shifting social norms and facilitating a change in impact. Public health implications. The lessons learned from these effective programs could be used to improve the design and implementation of future noncommunicable disease advocacy programs. © 2013 American Public Health Association.
Suggested Citation
Sunguya, B.F. & Munisamy, M. & Pongpanich, S. & Yasuoka, J. & Jimba, M., 2016.
"Ability of HIV advocacy to modifybehavioral norms and treatment impact: A systematic review,"
American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106(8), pages 1-8.
Handle:
RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2016.303179_6
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303179
Download full text from publisher
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:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2016.303179_6. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.