HIV Counseling and Testing of Young Men in Prison

MacGowan, Robin J.; Eldridge, Gloria D.; Sosman, James M.; Khan, Rizwana; Flanigan, Timothy P.; Zack, Barry; Margolis, Andrew D.; Askew, John; Fitzgerald, Christine; Belcher, Lisa; Berzowski, Jessica; Best, Gina; Binson, Diane; Bourque, Don; Buckles, Jeff; Charles, Mark Rector; Dey, Anup; DiSpigno, Melissa; Fortenberry, Marty; Gaiter, Juarlyn L.; Green, Kellie; Grinstead, Olga; Hecht, Jacki; Iqbal, Kashif; Johnson, Daryl; Kurpewski, Jaclynn; Kacanek, Deborah; King, Anthony J; C, King; Kramer, Katie; Krapf, Melanie; Lerma, Annette; Lugo, Ricky; Lumumba, Moribe; Malen, Kelly; McAuliffe, Tim; McCartney, Kathleen; McKee-Shapter, Jax; Morrow, Kathleen M.; Moss, Susan; Nacua, Mobette; Nealey-Moore, Jill B.; O’Leary, Ann; Paton, Stephanie M.; Patterson, Michael; Reed, Barbara D.; Reed, Ricardo; Roca, Merjo; Rosado, Noel; Seal, David W.; Simms, Rodney; Starr, Kimberly; Strother, Daniel; Vardaman, Jerry; Williamson, John; Wolitski, Richard J.; Woods, Meghan; Woods, William J.

doi:10.1177/1078345806292977

Cited by 13 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…23,25,123,124,126,135,136,138,139,147,151,153,155,156 Peer education was the most studied intervention mode (21 studies). 23,27,101,106,120,121,123,125,126,[128][129][130][131]134,143,144,[158][159][160]162,164 Of the other studies 14 were on peer support, 25,26,32,38,140,[149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157] two were on peer advisors, 135,139 two were on health trainers, …”

Section: Description Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…38,121,136,138,139 Nineteen were of moderate quality 25,31,37,101,106,[126][127][128][131][132][133]135,137,140,147,148,151,161,162 and 32 were of poor quality. 23,27,32,36,119,120,[122][123][124][125]129,130,134,[141][142][143][144][145][146]149,150,[152][153][154][155][156][157][158]…”

Section: Description Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 16 studies gave details of the underpinning theoretical model for the intervention 38,101,106,126,130,131,134,150,151,[153][154][155][156][161][162][163] In total, 19 studies had a quantitative design, 23,27,101,106,[122][123][124]126,130,132,134,143,144,146,154,[160][161][162]164 16 had a qualitative design 31,38,119,121,125,128,[137][138][139][140]142,147,148,150,159,…”

Section: Description Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…26 In terms of relevance to the review context, five were judged to be highly relevant, 38,135,136,138,139 with 27 being of some relevance 23,25,31,32,101,106,121,123,124,[126][127][128]131,132,137,[146][147][148][150][151][152][154][155][156]158,161,164 and 22 being not very relevant. 27,36,119,120,122,125,129,130,133,134,[140][141][142][143][144][145]153,157,…”

Section: Description Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…27,123,126 Another 14 studies had a qualitative design, 31,38,119,121,125,[137][138][139][140]142,147,148,150,159 15 used mixed methods 32,36,129,131,133,135,136,149,[151][152][153][154][155][156]158 and in four the design was unclear. 127,141,145,157 In total, 17 studies were from the UK 31,32,38,135,[137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions to maintain and improve offender health in prison settings

South

Bagnall

Hulme

et al. 2014

Health Services and Delivery Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOffender health is deemed a priority issue by the Department of Health. Peer support is an established feature of prison life in England and Wales; however, more needs to be known about the effectiveness of peer-based interventions to maintain and improve health in prison settings.ObjectivesThe study aimed to synthesise the evidence on peer-based interventions in prison settings by carrying out a systematic review and holding an expert symposium. Review questions were (1) what are the effects of peer-based interventions on prisoner health and the determinants of prisoner health?, (2) what are the positive and negative impacts on health services within prison settings of delivering peer-based interventions?, (3) how do the effects of peer-based approaches compare with those of professionally led approaches? and (4) what are the costs and cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions in prison settings?Data sourcesFor the systematic review, 20 electronic databases including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and EMBASE were searched from 1985. Grey literature and relevant websites were also searched. To supplement the review findings 58 delegates, representing a variety of organisations, attended an expert symposium, which provided contextual information.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently selected studies using the following inclusion criteria: population – prisoners resident in prisons and young offender institutions; intervention – peer-based interventions; comparators: review questions 3 and 4 compared peer-led and professionally led approaches; outcomes – prisoner health or determinants of health, organisational/process outcomes or views of prison populations; study design: quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods evaluations. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed validity using piloted electronic forms and validity assessment criteria based on published checklists. Results from quantitative studies were combined using narrative summary and meta-analysis when appropriate; results from qualitative studies were combined using thematic synthesis.ResultsA total of 15,320 potentially relevant papers were identified of which 57 studies were included in the effectiveness review and one study was included in the cost-effectiveness review; most were of poor methodological quality. A typology of peer-based interventions was developed. Evidence suggested that peer education interventions are effective at reducing risky behaviours and that peer support services provide an acceptable source of help within the prison environment and have a positive effect on recipients; the strongest evidence came from the Listener scheme. Consistent evidence from many predominantly qualitative studies suggested that being a peer deliverer was associated with positive effects across all intervention types. There was limited evidence about recruitment of peer deliverers. Recurring themes were the importance of prison managerial and staff support for schemes to operate successfully, and risk management. There was little evidence on the cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions. An economic model, developed from the results of the effectiveness review, although based on data of variable quality and a number of assumptions, showed the cost-effectiveness of peer-led over professionally led education in prison for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection.LimitationsThe 58 included studies were, on the whole, of poor methodological quality.ConclusionsThere is consistent evidence from a large number of studies that being a peer worker is associated with positive health. Peer support services can also provide an acceptable source of help within the prison environment and can have a positive effect on recipients. This was confirmed by expert evidence. Research into cost-effectiveness is sparse but a limited HIV-specific economic model, although based on a number of assumptions and evidence of variable quality, showed that peer interventions were cost-effective compared with professionally led interventions. Well-designed intervention studies are needed to provide robust evidence including assessing outcomes for the target population, economic analysis of cost-effectiveness and impacts on prison health services. More research is needed to examine issues of reach, utilisation and acceptability from the perspective of recipients and those who choose not to receive peer support.Study registrationThis study was registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002349.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

show abstract

Section: Description Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions to maintain and improve offender health in prison settings

South

Bagnall

Hulme

et al. 2014

Health Services and Delivery Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Cost and Threshold Analysis of an HIV/STI/Hepatitis Prevention Intervention for Young Men Leaving Prison: Project START

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were to: (a) estimate the costs of providing a single-session HIV prevention intervention and a multi-session intervention, and (b) estimate the number of HIV transmissions that would need to be prevented for the intervention to be cost-saving or cost-effective (threshold analysis). Project START was evaluated with 522 young men aged 18-29 years released from eight prisons located in California, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. Cost data were collected prospectively. Costs per participant were $689 for the single-session comparison intervention, and ranged from $1,823 to 1,836 for the Project START multi-session intervention. From the incremental threshold analysis, the multi-session intervention would be cost-effective if it prevented one HIV transmission for every 753 participants compared to the single-session intervention. Costs are comparable with other HIV prevention programs. Program managers can use these data to gauge costs of initiating these HIV prevention programs in correctional facilities.

show abstract

Positive Transitions (POST): Evaluation of an HIV Prevention Intervention for HIV-Positive Persons Releasing from Correctional Facilities

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People with HIV who are released from custody frequently do not maintain the viral suppression and other health benefits achieved while incarcerated. This study was conducted to provide preliminary evidence of efficacy of an intervention to reduce HIV risk behaviors and increase use of HIV medical services following release from custody. People with HIV were recruited from San Francisco County jails, San Quentin State Prison and the California Medical Facility (Vacaville, CA), and randomly assigned to the "standard of care" or POST intervention. POST consisted of 4 sessions pre-release and 2 sessions post-release, focusing on HIV prevention and access to care. Behavioral data were obtained for the 3 months before incarceration and 3 months after release. Although POST participants reported a statistically significant increase in receiving health care at HIV clinics (62.5-84.4 %), there were no significant differences between the POST and control participants with respect to any primary outcomes.

show abstract

HIV Counseling and Testing of Young Men in Prison

Cited by 13 publications

References 16 publications

A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions to maintain and improve offender health in prison settings

A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer-based interventions to maintain and improve offender health in prison settings

Cost and Threshold Analysis of an HIV/STI/Hepatitis Prevention Intervention for Young Men Leaving Prison: Project START

Positive Transitions (POST): Evaluation of an HIV Prevention Intervention for HIV-Positive Persons Releasing from Correctional Facilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About