Dataset Information

EHealth Interventions to Address Sexual Health, Substance Use, and Mental Health Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Systematic Review and Synthesis of Process Evaluations.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Men who have sex with men (MSM) face disproportionate risks concerning HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, substance use, and mental health. These outcomes constitute an interacting syndemic among MSM; interventions addressing all 3 together could have multiplicative effects. eHealth interventions can be accessed privately, and evidence from general populations suggests these can effectively address all 3 health outcomes. However, it is unclear how useable, accessible, or acceptable eHealth interventions are for MSM and what factors affect this.

Objective

We undertook a systematic review of eHealth interventions addressing sexual risk, substance use, and common mental illnesses among MSM and synthesized evidence from process evaluations.

Methods

We searched 19 databases, 3 trials registers, OpenGrey, and Google, and supplemented this by reference checks and requests to experts. Eligible reports were those that discussed eHealth interventions offering ongoing support to MSM aiming to prevent sexual risk, substance use, anxiety or depression; and assessed how intervention delivery or receipt varied with characteristics of interventions, providers, participants, or context. Reviewers screened citations on titles, abstracts, and then full text. Reviewers assessed quality of eligible studies, and extracted data on intervention, study characteristics, and process evaluation findings. The analysis used thematic synthesis.

Results

A total of 12 reports, addressing 10 studies of 8 interventions, were eligible for process synthesis. Most addressed sexual risk alone or with other outcomes. Studies were assessed as medium and high reliability (reflecting the trustworthiness of overall findings) but tended to lack depth and breadth in terms of the process issues explored. Intervention acceptability was enhanced by ease of use; privacy protection; use of diverse media; opportunities for self-reflection and to gain knowledge and skills; and content that was clear, interactive, tailored, reflective of MSM's experiences, and affirming of sexual-minority identity. Technical issues and interventions that were too long detracted from acceptability. Some evidence suggested that acceptability varied by race or ethnicity and educational level; findings on variation by socioeconomic status were mixed. No studies explored how intervention delivery or receipt varied by provider characteristics.

Conclusions

Findings suggest that eHealth interventions targeting sexual risk, substance use, and mental health are acceptable for MSM across sociodemographic groups. We identified the factors shaping MSM's receipt of such interventions, highlighting the importance of tailored content reflecting MSM's experiences and of language affirming sexual-minority identities. Intervention developers can draw on these findings to increase the usability and acceptability of integrated eHealth interventions to address the syndemic of sexual risk, substance use, and mental ill health among MSM. Evaluators of these interventions can draw on our findings to plan evaluations that explore the factors shaping usability and acceptability.

SUBMITTER: Meiksin R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8105760 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMen who have sex with men experience disproportionately high levels of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), sexual risk behavior, substance use, and mental ill-health. These experiences are interrelated, and these interrelations are potentiated by structural conditions of discrimination, stigma, and unequal access to appropriate health services, and they magnify each other and have intersecting causal pathways, worsening both risk for each condition and risk for the negative sequelae of each condition. eHealth interventions could address these issues simultaneously and thus have wide-ranging and greater effects than would be for any 1 outcome alone.ObjectiveWe systematically reviewed the evidence for the effectiveness of eHealth interventions in addressing these outcomes separately or together.MethodsWe searched 19 databases for randomized trials of interactive or noninteractive eHealth interventions delivered via mobile phone apps, internet, or other electronic media to populations consisting entirely or principally of men who have sex with men to prevent HIV, STIs, sexual risk behavior, alcohol and drug use, or common mental illnesses. We extracted data and appraised each study, estimated meta-analyses where possible by using random effects and robust variance estimation, and assessed the certainty of our findings (closeness of the estimated effect to the true effect) by using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations).ResultsWe included 14 trials, of which 13 included active versus control comparisons; none reported mental health outcomes, and all drew from 12 months or less of follow-up postintervention. Findings for STIs drew on low numbers of studies and did not suggest consistent short-term (<3 months postintervention; d=0.17, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.52; I2=0%; 2 studies) or midterm (3-12 months postintervention, no meta-analysis, 1 study) evidence of effectiveness. Eight studies considering sexual risk behavior outcomes suggested a short-term, nonsignificant reduction (d=-0.14, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.03) with very low certainty, but 6 studies reporting midterm follow-ups suggested a significant impact on reducing sexual risk behavior (d=-0.12, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.05) with low certainty. Meta-analyses could not be undertaken for alcohol and drug use (2 heterogeneous studies) or for HIV infections (1 study for each of short-term or midterm follow-up), and alcohol outcomes alone were not captured in the included studies. Certainty was graded as low to very low for most outcomes, including all meta-analyses.ConclusionsTo create a comprehensive eHealth intervention that targets multiple outcomes, intervention evaluations should seek to generalize both mechanisms and components that are successfully used to achieve change in 1 outcome over multiple outcomes. However, additional evaluations of interventions seeking to address outcomes other than sexual risk behavior are needed before development and evaluation of a joined-up intervention.

Project description:BackgroundWithin increasingly constrained school timetables, interventions that integrate academic and health education to reduce substance use and violence may hold promise as a category of intervention that can positively affect both academic and health outcomes. There are no current systematic reviews exploring the effectiveness of such interventions or factors that affect their implementation.MethodsA total of 19 bibliographic databases and 32 websites were searched. References were also extracted from the reference lists of included studies, and experts and authors were contacted to identify relevant studies. We included reports with no restrictions on language or date. References were screened on title/abstract and those not thus excluded were screened on full report. Data extraction and appraisal followed the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre and Cochrane tools. Extracted process data were qualitatively meta-synthesised for common themes.ResultsSeventy-eight thousand four hundred fifty-one unique references were identified, and 62 reports were included. A total of 16 reports (reporting on 15 studies of 12 interventions) evaluated process. Key facilitators of integrated academic and health curricula were supportive senior management and alignment of the intervention with school ethos; a positive teaching environment, including positive perceptions around the ability to be flexible in the adaptation and delivery of integrated academic and health curricula; positive pre-existing student and teacher attitudes towards intervention content; and parental support of interventions, largely through reinforcement of messaging at home. Important barriers were over-burdened teachers, with little time to learn and implement integrated curricula.ConclusionSeveral useful facilitating and inhibiting factors linked to the implementation of interventions that integrate academic and health education for reduced substance use and/or violence were identified, providing tentative but insightful evidence of context-specific issues that may impact intervention success. However, overall, there is still a considerable gap in our understanding of how to achieve the successful implementation of these interventions.

Project description:BackgroundSexual risk, substance use, and mental ill health constitute a syndemic of co-occurring, mutually reinforcing epidemics amongst men who have sex with men (MSM). Developed since 1995, e-health interventions offer accessible, anonymous support and can be effective in addressing these outcomes, suggesting the potential value of developing e-health interventions that address these simultaneously amongst MSM. We conducted a systematic review of e-health interventions addressing one or more of these outcomes amongst MSM and in this paper describe the theories of change underpinning relevant interventions, what these offer and how they might complement each other.MethodsWe identified eligible reports via expert requests, reference-checking and database and Google searches. Results were screened for reports published in 1995 or later; focused on MSM; reporting on e-health interventions providing ongoing support to prevent HIV/STIs, sexual risk behaviour, substance use, anxiety or depression; and describing intervention theories of change. Reviewers assessed report quality, extracted intervention and theory of change data, and developed a novel method of synthesis using diagrammatic representations of theories of change.ResultsThirty-three reports on 22 intervention theories of change were included, largely of low/medium-quality. Inductively grouping these theories according to their core constructs, we identified three distinct groupings of theorised pathways. In the largest, the 'cognitive/skills' grouping, interventions provide information and activities which are theorised to influence behaviour via motivation/intention and self-efficacy/perceived control. In the 'self-monitoring' grouping, interventions are theorised to trigger reflection, self-reward/critique and self-regulation. In the 'cognitive therapy' grouping, the theory of change is rooted in cognitive therapy techniques, aiming to reframe negative emotions to improve mental health.ConclusionsThe synthesised theories of change provide a framework for developing e-health interventions that might holistically address syndemic health problems amongst MSM. Improving reporting on theories of change in primary studies of e-health interventions would enable a better understanding of how they are intended to work and the evidence supporting this. The novel diagrammatic method of theory of change synthesis used here could be used for future reviews where interventions are driven by existing well-defined behaviour and behaviour change theories.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018110317.

Project description:Parental domestic violence and abuse (DVA), mental ill-health (MH), and substance misuse (SU) are three public health issues that tend to cluster within families, risking negative impacts for both parents and children. Despite this, service provision for these issues has been historically siloed, increasing the barriers families face to accessing support. Our review aimed to identify family focused interventions that have combined impacts on parental DVA, MH, and/or SU. We searched 10 databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Education Research Information Centre, Sociological Abstracts, Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from inception to July 2021 for randomised controlled trials examining the effectiveness of family focused, psychosocial, preventive interventions targeting parents/carers at risk of, or experiencing, DVA, MH, and/or SU. Studies were included if they measured impacts on two or more of these issues. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 was used to quality appraise studies, which were synthesised narratively, grouped in relation to the combination of DVA, MH, and/or SU outcomes measured. Harvest plots were used to illustrate the findings. Thirty-seven unique studies were identified for inclusion. Of these, none had a combined positive impact on all three outcomes and only one study demonstrated a combined positive impact on two outcomes. We also found studies that had combined adverse, mixed, or singular impacts. Most studies were based in the U.S., targeted mothers, and were rated as 'some concerns' or 'high risk' of bias. The results highlight the distinct lack of evidence for, and no 'best bet', family focused interventions targeting these often-clustered risks. This may, in part, be due to the ways interventions are currently conceptualised or designed to influence the relationships between DVA, MH, and/or SU. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration: CRD42020210350.

Project description:BackgroundThis work aimed to identify studies of interventions seeking to address mental health inequalities, studies assessing the economic impact of such interventions and factors which act as barriers and those that can facilitate interventions to address inequalities in mental health care.MethodsA systematic mapping method was chosen. Studies were included if they: (1) focused on a population with: (a) mental health disorders, (b) protected or other characteristics putting them at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities; (2) addressed an intervention focused on addressing mental health inequalities; and (3) met criteria for one or more of three research questions: (i) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews reporting effectiveness findings for an intervention or interventions, (ii) studies reporting economic evaluation findings, (iii) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews identifying or describing, potential barriers or facilitators to interventions. A bibliographic search of MEDLINE, HMIC, ASSIA, Social Policy & Practice, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and PsycINFO spanned January 2008 to December 2018. Study selection was performed according to inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and tabulated to map studies and summarise published research on mental health inequalities. A visual representation of the mapping review (a mapping diagram) is included.ResultsOverall, 128 studies met inclusion criteria: 115 primary studies and 13 systematic reviews. Of those, 94 looked at interventions, 6 at cost-effectiveness and 36 at barriers and facilitators. An existing taxonomy of disparities interventions was used and modified to categorise interventions by type and strategy. Most of the identified interventions focused on addressing socioeconomic factors, race disparities and age-related issues. The most frequently used intervention strategy was providing psychological support. Barriers and associated facilitators were categorised into groups including (not limited to) access to care, communication issues and financial constraints.ConclusionsThe mapping review was useful in assessing the spread of literature and identifying highly researched areas versus prominent gaps. The findings are useful for clinicians, commissioners and service providers seeking to understand strategies to support the advancement of mental health equality for different populations and could be used to inform further research and support local decision-making.Systematic review registrationNot applicable.

Project description:BackgroundComplex interventions in health care are characterized by multiple interacting components as well as by numerous nonlinear interactions with the social systems within which they are being implemented. The process of developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions is therefore challenging. Established guidance such as the MRC (Medical Research Council) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions refers to process evaluations as an integral part of the development of complex evidence-based interventions. Even though the need for process evaluations is recognized, the realization of such approaches is challenging because methodological instruction is sparse, and the phenomenon of interest is complex. A number of theoretical approaches indicating how to conduct process evaluations of complex interventions in health care exist, but a systematic and comprehensive overview of these is missing. Thus, the objective of the systematic scoping review described herein is to provide an overview and analysis of theoretical approaches suitable for the planning and conducting of process evaluations.MethodsThe design and conduct of this review will follow the procedures of a systematic scoping review. The search strategy will be developed following the BeHEMoTh (Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) template which has been conceptualized for structured reviews of theory. The systematic search of the MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL (via EBSCO) and PsycInfo (via EBSCO) electronic databases will be complemented by "hand searching" techniques. Study selection, data extraction, and data analysis will be performed by tandems of two researchers independently of each other. Divergent decisions and judgements between the two researchers will be discussed by the whole review team.DiscussionThe findings from this scoping review will provide an overview and comparison of theoretical approaches suitable for process evaluations of complex interventions in health care. The review results will support researchers in choosing the theoretical approach that best fits the respective focus of their process evaluation study.Systematic review registrationThis study has been registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under registration number CRD42020211732 .