Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

HIV among immigrants living in high-income countries: a realist review of evidence to guide targeted approaches to behavioural HIV prevention

Read this article at

Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      BackgroundImmigrants from developing and middle-income countries are an emerging priority in HIV prevention in high-income countries. This may be explained in part by accelerating international migration and population mobility. However, it may also be due to the vulnerabilities of immigrants including social exclusion along with socioeconomic, cultural and language barriers to HIV prevention. Contemporary thinking on effective HIV prevention stresses the need for targeted approaches that adapt HIV prevention interventions according to the cultural context and population being addressed. This review of evidence sought to generate insights into targeted approaches in this emerging area of HIV prevention.MethodsWe undertook a realist review to answer the research question: ‘How are HIV prevention interventions in high-income countries adapted to suit immigrants’ needs?’ A key goal was to uncover underlying theories or mechanisms operating in behavioural HIV prevention interventions with immigrants, to uncover explanations as how and why they work (or not) for particular groups in particular contexts, and thus to refine the underlying theories. The realist review mapped seven initial mechanisms underlying culturally appropriate HIV prevention with immigrants. Evidence from intervention studies and qualitative studies found in systematic searches was then used to test and refine these seven mechanisms.ResultsThirty-four intervention studies and 40 qualitative studies contributed to the analysis and synthesis of evidence. The strongest evidence supported the role of ‘consonance’ mechanisms, indicating the pivotal need to incorporate cultural values into the intervention content. Moderate evidence was found to support the role of three other mechanisms – ‘understanding’, ‘specificity’ and ‘embeddedness’ – which indicated that using the language of immigrants, usually the ‘mother tongue’, targeting (in terms of ethnicity) and the use of settings were also critical elements in culturally appropriate HIV prevention. There was mixed evidence for the roles of ‘authenticity’ and ‘framing’ mechanisms and only partial evidence to support role of ‘endorsement’ mechanisms.ConclusionsThis realist review contributes to the explanatory framework of behavioural HIV prevention among immigrants living in high-income countries and, in particular, builds a greater understanding of the suite of mechanisms that underpin adaptations of interventions by the cultural context and population being targeted.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 98

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy.

      Antiretroviral therapy that reduces viral replication could limit the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in serodiscordant couples. In nine countries, we enrolled 1763 couples in which one partner was HIV-1-positive and the other was HIV-1-negative; 54% of the subjects were from Africa, and 50% of infected partners were men. HIV-1-infected subjects with CD4 counts between 350 and 550 cells per cubic millimeter were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive antiretroviral therapy either immediately (early therapy) or after a decline in the CD4 count or the onset of HIV-1-related symptoms (delayed therapy). The primary prevention end point was linked HIV-1 transmission in HIV-1-negative partners. The primary clinical end point was the earliest occurrence of pulmonary tuberculosis, severe bacterial infection, a World Health Organization stage 4 event, or death. As of February 21, 2011, a total of 39 HIV-1 transmissions were observed (incidence rate, 1.2 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 1.7); of these, 28 were virologically linked to the infected partner (incidence rate, 0.9 per 100 person-years, 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.3). Of the 28 linked transmissions, only 1 occurred in the early-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.27; P<0.001). Subjects receiving early therapy had fewer treatment end points (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.88; P=0.01). The early initiation of antiretroviral therapy reduced rates of sexual transmission of HIV-1 and clinical events, indicating both personal and public health benefits from such therapy. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; HPTN 052 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00074581.).
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        Realist review--a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions.

        Evidence-based policy is a dominant theme in contemporary public services but the practical realities and challenges involved in using evidence in policy-making are formidable. Part of the problem is one of complexity. In health services and other public services, we are dealing with complex social interventions which act on complex social systems--things like league tables, performance measures, regulation and inspection, or funding reforms. These are not 'magic bullets' which will always hit their target, but programmes whose effects are crucially dependent on context and implementation. Traditional methods of review focus on measuring and reporting on programme effectiveness, often find that the evidence is mixed or conflicting, and provide little or no clue as to why the intervention worked or did not work when applied in different contexts or circumstances, deployed by different stakeholders, or used for different purposes. This paper offers a model of research synthesis which is designed to work with complex social interventions or programmes, and which is based on the emerging 'realist' approach to evaluation. It provides an explanatory analysis aimed at discerning what works for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and how. The first step is to make explicit the programme theory (or theories)--the underlying assumptions about how an intervention is meant to work and what impacts it is expected to have. We then look for empirical evidence to populate this theoretical framework, supporting, contradicting or modifying the programme theories as it goes. The results of the review combine theoretical understanding and empirical evidence, and focus on explaining the relationship between the context in which the intervention is applied, the mechanisms by which it works and the outcomes which are produced. The aim is to enable decision-makers to reach a deeper understanding of the intervention and how it can be made to work most effectively. Realist review does not provide simple answers to complex questions. It will not tell policy-makers or managers whether something works or not, but will provide the policy and practice community with the kind of rich, detailed and highly practical understanding of complex social interventions which is likely to be of much more use to them when planning and implementing programmes at a national, regional or local level.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field.

          Policy-makers and managers have always used a wide range of sources of evidence in making decisions about policy and the organization of services. However, they are under increasing pressure to adopt a more systematic approach to the utilization of the complex evidence base. Decision-makers must address complicated questions about the nature and significance of the problem to be addressed; the nature of proposed interventions; their differential impact; cost-effectiveness; acceptability and so on. This means that Cochrane-style reviews alone are not sufficient. Rather, they require access to syntheses of high-quality evidence that include research and non-research sources, and both qualitative and quantitative research findings. There is no single, agreed framework for synthesizing such diverse forms of evidence and many of the approaches potentially applicable to such an endeavour were devised for either qualitative or quantitative synthesis and/or for analysing primary data. This paper describes the key stages in reviewing and synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence for decision-making and looks at various strategies that could offer a way forward. We identify four basic approaches: narrative (including traditional 'literature reviews' and more methodologically explicit approaches such as 'thematic analysis', 'narrative synthesis', 'realist synthesis' and 'meta-narrative mapping'), qualitative (which convert all available evidence into qualitative form using techniques such as 'meta-ethnography' and 'qualitative cross-case analysis'), quantitative (which convert all evidence into quantitative form using techniques such as 'quantitative case survey' or 'content analysis') and Bayesian meta-analysis and decision analysis (which can convert qualitative evidence such as preferences about different outcomes into quantitative form or 'weights' to use in quantitative synthesis). The choice of approach will be contingent on the aim of the review and nature of the available evidence, and often more than one approach will be required.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            [1 ]Multicultural HIV and Hepatitis Service, PO Box M139, MISSENDEN ROAD, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia
            [2 ]Discipline of Public Health, School of Medicine, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Flinders, SA, 5001, Australia
            Contributors
            Journal
            Syst Rev
            Syst Rev
            Systematic Reviews
            BioMed Central
            2046-4053
            2012
            20 November 2012
            : 1
            : 56
            23168134
            3534573
            2046-4053-1-56
            10.1186/2046-4053-1-56
            Copyright ©2012 McMahon and Ward; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

            This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

            Categories
            Research

            Comments

            Comment on this article