Effect of interventions based on educational technologies on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections in incarcerated women: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

IntroductionPrisons are places with high vulnerability and high risk for the development of sexually transmitted infections. World Health Agencies recommend establishing intervention measures, such as information and education, on the prevention of diseases. Thus, technologies as tools for health education have been used to reduce sexually transmitted infections. However, no systematic review has investigated the effectiveness of these interventions. Therefore, this review’s objective is to examine the effect of educational technologies used for preventing sexually transmitted infections in incarcerated women.Methods and analysisPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be strictly followed. The following electronic databases will be searched: Scopus; Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, Education Resources Information Center, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Randomised clinical trials of interventions that used educational technologies to prevent sexually transmitted infections in incarcerated women will be searched in the databases from the beginning of 2020 until December by two researchers independently. A narrative synthesis will be constructed for all included studies, and if there are sufficient data, a meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software (V.5.3). Continuous results will be presented as the weighted mean difference or the standardised mean difference with 95% CIs. Under the heterogeneity of the included studies, a random-effects or fixed-effects model will be used. The studies’ heterogeneity will be assessed by the I2 method. The sensitivity analysis will be carried out to examine the magnitude of each study’s influence on the general results. A significance level of p≤0.05 will be adopted.Ethics and disclosureEthical approval is not required because no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in journals reviewed by peers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020163820.

Patient communication protocols for sexually transmitted infections: A systematic review

“…9,43 Usually, healthcare professionals talk with patients about STIs focusing on preventive measures and campaigns. [44][45][46][47][48] However, the present study revealed a lack of systematic reviews focused on the communication of positive test result and post-test counseling, as well as their impact on patient's lives. To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first systematic review to specifically investigate the literature on protocols for post-test communication of STIs and observational studies.…”

“…The process of conveying a “bad diagnosis” is an important subject, as it can have significant psychological and emotional impacts on patients, particularly regarding their uncertainties in the present and future 9,43 . Usually, healthcare professionals talk with patients about STIs focusing on preventive measures and campaigns 44–48 . However, the present study revealed a lack of systematic reviews focused on the communication of positive test result and post‐test counseling, as well as their impact on patient's lives.…”

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce sexually transmitted infections and blood-borne viruses in incarcerated adult populations: a systematic review protocol

“…Screening can refer to an organized, systematic, facility-wide program, or a single intervention. 15 Surveillance is the collection, analysis, and interpretation of information on the health status of a population-in this case, incarcerated persons-to provide early warning of disease outbreaks and to monitor disease burden over time. 1 There will be no limitations on the type, frequency, or mode of delivery of interventions investigated in the studies.…”

“…Interventions will include screening for STIs and/or BBVs, STI case management programs, surveillance clinics, new models of care, condom and dental dam promotion, pharmaceutical prophylaxis programs, health promotion, and education programs. Screening can refer to an organized, systematic, facility-wide program, or a single intervention 15 . Surveillance is the collection, analysis, and interpretation of information on the health status of a population—in this case, incarcerated persons—to provide early warning of disease outbreaks and to monitor disease burden over time 1 .…”

“…14 Screening is often conducted with asymptomatic people who are anticipated to be at risk of a particular disease. 14 Existing systematic reviews on interventions to prevent and reduce the transmission of STIs and BBVs in incarcerated populations [15][16][17][18] focus on specific interventions and/or limited geographical settings, highlighting the need for this broader review. Winter et al 13 audited 100 medical files from 3 prisons (n = 300) in Victoria, Australia, between December 2015 and July 2018.…”