Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: In spite of the fact that women now make up almost half of those infected with HIV globally, there is very little research on interventions and/or programmes to support women once they are infected. This abstract discusses the issue of sex disaggregated data; a significant challenge encountered during a review of peer-based interventions for HIV positive women.
Objectives: To highlight the lack of sex disaggregated data as a significant methodological challenge to reviews addressing women.
Methods: We included all eligible randomized controlled trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-after studies of peer-based interventions. We searched several databases, contacted relevant non-governmental organizations, government bodies and key stakeholders working in the field of HIV/AIDS, handsearched reference lists and conducted a comprehensive web-based search.
Results: The search strategy found 1621 citations, 78 of which were reviewed in full. Of those reviewed, four met the inclusion criteria the rest were excluded for the following reasons: programme description or case study (38); descriptive or exploratory (5); repeats (6); intervention included men only (2); failure to report sex disaggregated data plus another issue (no control group, not peer) (16); peer-based interventions but no sex disaggregated data or less than five included women (4); and not a peer-based intervention (3). Overall, over 1/4 of the reviewed studies had mixed sex samples but did not report data by sex in their conclusions.
Conclusions: The studies reviewed, that included both male and female participants, rarely reported on the two sexes separately. Recruitment and confidentiality issues may explain this but efforts should be made to redress these issues. We cannot assume that the effects of a supportive intervention will be the same on HIV positive women and men. If data were to be reported separately by sex, as a rule, the review process would be expedited significantly at all stages.
Objectives: To highlight the lack of sex disaggregated data as a significant methodological challenge to reviews addressing women.
Methods: We included all eligible randomized controlled trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-after studies of peer-based interventions. We searched several databases, contacted relevant non-governmental organizations, government bodies and key stakeholders working in the field of HIV/AIDS, handsearched reference lists and conducted a comprehensive web-based search.
Results: The search strategy found 1621 citations, 78 of which were reviewed in full. Of those reviewed, four met the inclusion criteria the rest were excluded for the following reasons: programme description or case study (38); descriptive or exploratory (5); repeats (6); intervention included men only (2); failure to report sex disaggregated data plus another issue (no control group, not peer) (16); peer-based interventions but no sex disaggregated data or less than five included women (4); and not a peer-based intervention (3). Overall, over 1/4 of the reviewed studies had mixed sex samples but did not report data by sex in their conclusions.
Conclusions: The studies reviewed, that included both male and female participants, rarely reported on the two sexes separately. Recruitment and confidentiality issues may explain this but efforts should be made to redress these issues. We cannot assume that the effects of a supportive intervention will be the same on HIV positive women and men. If data were to be reported separately by sex, as a rule, the review process would be expedited significantly at all stages.