As young people continue to bear the greater proportion of infections,
researchers, doctors, educators and social workers are increasingly intent on
finding the most effective interventions. A session at the Eighteenth International AIDS Conference in Vienna
considered the effectiveness of different youth interventions occurring in
resource-limited areas.
Systematic reviews help to determine what works and what
doesn’t. A 2006 report, Ready, Steady, Go!, conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and
several UN agencies, found that curriculum-based interventions led by adults
were the most effective, specifically involving teachers and students. Other
interventions, including community-wide activities, increased training of
healthcare workers, and changes in service delivery, require more research.
Notably, curriculum-based interventions led by peers or
older peers have not yet been proven to be effective, according to the report.
This was mirrored by a systematic review done by a team of researchers at Brown University,
which considered interventions targeting juvenile offenders but found no clear
patterns concerning effectiveness of peer education. Additionally, all
panelists noted that greater data demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of
behavioural interventions was needed.
Charlotte Watts of the London
School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Helen Rees of the Reproductive
Health and HIV Research Unit at the University of the Witwatersrand,
highlighted the use of incentives to stimulate behaviour change. As of 2007,
the World Bank estimated that 29 countries utilised some form of conditional
cash transfer (CCT) programme. While traditionally used for the improvement of
general health indicators, such as giving a mother money in exchange for having
her child vaccinated, there is an increasing interest in tailoring such methods
for reproductive health behaviours, specifically by rewarding condom use, low
rates of sexually transmitted infection (STI) transmission, and the increased uptake of services such as testing
and care.
Watts noted that studies
determining STI prevention through CCT have largely been effective, with as
many as 60% of participants reporting lower rates of infection than those in
control arms. Following this precedent, Rees presented background information
on a study to be implemented in South
Africa in 2011. Given that several studies
have proven that “staying in school [is] protective against HIV”, Rees and her
colleagues have created a study in which girls and their heads of households
will be given a cash incentive for maintaining attendance. A community arm will
also be implemented, with young men receiving training on gender, sexuality
and HIV.
There will be four cohorts in the study:
girls who are given
cash transfers in a community which receives training;
girls who receive cash
transfers without community training;
girls who don’t receive cash transfers
but who live in a community which receives training; and
girls who do not
receive cash transfers, while their communities receive no training.
In
addition to decreasing rates of HIV infectivity, the study will also consider
outcomes concerning gender norms and herpes infection. Preliminary results are
expected in 2014.
Despite their proven efficacy, CCT programmes remain
contentious. Questions regarding whether the interventions undermine individual
autonomy, are top-down, and are “selective poverty alleviation”, are of central
concern. Long-term effects also need further research. “Incentives are very
successful…in terms of [short-term] behaviour,” Watts
notes. “I think there’s more contention as to whether this can lead to long-term behaviour change.”
Other types of incentives have also proven effective. In a
groundbreaking new study presented by Ralph DiClemente of the Emory School of
Medicine, researchers found that introducing an HIV and STI education programme
followed by a total of nine 15-minute calls occurring at six-month intervals
reduced the rate of new chlamydia infections by 40% in young African-American
women.
As part of the study, so-called 'health coaches' called
participants to discuss condom use, avoiding risky situations, negotiating and
refusing sex, HIV and STI transmission, and the joys and challenges of being an
African-American woman. DiClemente noted that since the coaches were the same
throughout the study, they were able to offer “personalised tailoring [of] HIV prevention”. Eighteen months later, these brief calls were also effective in enhancing condom use
and reducing the frequency of sex while drinking or using drugs.
DiClemente considers this a “highly cost-effective
intervention, with 1.5 hours of time reducing chlamydia rates by 40%”. He
suggests that the study be translated to a different setting and used amongst a
different population in order to test the potential for widespread use.