From: An exploratory review of HIV prevention mass media campaigns targeting men who have sex with men
Study | Aims | Design | Sample | Study process and outcome measures | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hecht et al. [14] | To compare certainty of HIV negative status before and after the campaign | Repeat pre-test/post-test cross-sectional study (campaign May - July 2008, post-test July - Oct 2008). Part of National HIV Behavioral Surveillance | Recruitment: MSM venue-based, time-space sampling | Campaign awareness | 45% reported they had seen the campaign. Of these: |
Response rate: Not reported | 64% correctly identified the subject of the campaign | ||||
Sample size: 316 men | |||||
Analysis confined to 255 men who reported being HIV negative | |||||
Hilliam et al. [21]* | To measure campaign awareness; HIV awareness; attitudes toward testing, prevention and safe sex; and behaviour change | Repeat pre-test/post-test cross-sectional study - post-test 4-5 months after launch | Recruitment: Via LGBT and HIV organisation websites, and Gaydar (post-test only). Men recruited via Gaydar (G) were analysed separately from those recruited via other non-Gaydar (nG) websites due to differences observed between samples | Campaign awareness | 3-13% reported non-prompted awareness of campaign |
Response rate: Not reported | 69%nG and 82%G reported prompted awareness of campaign (men most commonly reported seeing the web adverts 50%nG and 77%G, followed by the web site 17%G and 29%nG, and finally by the posters 27%G and 32%nG) | ||||
Sample size: Pre-test sample = 88, Post-test sample = 775 | Campaign attributes | Campaign attributes most commonly reported by men: clear message (62%nG and 63%G) and relevance (51% G and 61%nG). Campaign attributes least commonly reported by men: motivating (11%nG and 20%G) and trustworthy (23%nG and 25%G) | |||
HIV test | Men who had seen the campaign were more likely to report having had an HIV test in the last 6 months than those who had not seen the campaign, 33%G and 38nG% versus 9%nG and 16%G, respectively | ||||
Repeat cross-sectional surveys – Gay Men’s Sex Survey (GMSS) questionnaire | Recruitment: Via Pride-type events across UK and the Internet | Campaign Awareness | 2005 | ||
Focus groups and interviews | A variety of recruitment methods described for nested qualitative component, including established agency networks, e-newsletters, fliers and use of snowballing techniques. Purposive sampling, UK cities | Be confident, be covered: 32% recognised, and of those 52.4% had read | |||
Response rate: Not reported | PEP: 16.1% recognised, and of those 56.6% had read | ||||
Sample size: | 2004 | ||||
Surveys | Infection situations: 18.6% recognised, and of those 51.6% had read | ||||
Between 1997-2000 data gathered via face data collection at Pride events, then from 2001 via booklets and online | Think again: 29.1% recognised, and of those 54.0% had read | ||||
2005: N = 12,322 | 2003 | ||||
2004: N = 11,909 | Biology of transmission: 26.1% recognised, and of those 50.3% had read | ||||
2003: N = 9,482 | 2002 | ||||
2002 N = 11,046 (booklet = 3515, online = 7531) | Just as unbelievable: 30.7% recognised (40.4% of booklet users and 26.5% online users), and of those that recognised 64.6% (booklet) and 58.2% (online) had read | ||||
2001 N = 9226 (Pride attendees = 2401, booklet = 2384, web = 4441) | Clever dick: 31.9% recognised (43.9% of booklet users and 26.7% online users), and of those that recognised 72.2% (booklet) and 64.8% (online) had read | ||||
2000 N = 312 | 2001 | ||||
1999 N = 313 | Facts for life: Recognised by 42.1% of Pride attendees, 43.0% of those using the booklet and 24.8% of those online, and of those that recognised 54.5% (booklet) and 41.4% (online) had read | ||||
1998 N = 294 | In two minds? Recognised by 62.9% of Pride attendees, 59.6% of those using the booklet and 39.3% of those online, and of those that recognised 71.5% (booklet) and 63.1% (online) had read | ||||
Focus groups | 2000 | ||||
2009: 6 groups, 49 men | Better off knowing: 48.1% recognised | ||||
2004: 7 groups, 33 men | What’s on Your Mind: 31.7% recognised | ||||
2003: 5 groups, 46 men | What am I?.. See to it: 47.1% recognised | ||||
2001: 5 groups, 37 men | 1999 | ||||
Interviews | Homophobia: 34.1% recognised image in gay press, 36.5% recognised images in general media | ||||
2000: 68 | What’s on Your Mind: 54.3% recognised | ||||
1998: 71 | What am I?.. See to it: 47.9% recognised | ||||
1997: 62 | Think, Talk, Time to Test: 35.1% recognised | ||||
1998 | |||||
Think, Talk, Time to Test: 40.5% recognised, and of those 62.5% had read | |||||
Assume nothing: 44.6% recognised, and of those 56.1% had read | |||||
Roedling et al. [29] | To compare clinical data, exposure characteristics, follow-up and awareness of post-exposure prophylaxis following sexual exposure to HIV pre and post campaign | Retrospective case note review from 2004 pre and post campaign | Recruitment: Not applicable. Case notes for all those attending for PEP in 2004 included | Sexual behaviour | Condom use |
Campaign launched in July 2008 | Response rate: not applicable | Pre-campaign 20/33 (61%) | |||
Sample size: 216 attendees requested PEP, data available on 197 (91%) | Post-campaign 39/66 (59%), p = 1.00 | ||||
Analysis: Confined to 112 MSM commencing PEPSE, pre-campaign n = 36 and post-campaign n = 76 | Median number of sexual partners in the previous 3 months | ||||
Pre-campaign 3 (range 1-50) | |||||
Post-campaign 4 (1-100), p = 0.51 | |||||
Hartfield et al. [22]* | To evaluate campaign coverage and impact | Repeat pre-test/post-test cross-sectional study. Campaign launched June-Aug 2008. Pre (March – May 2008) and post campaign (June-Dec. 2008) survey | Recruitment: Via MSM venues | Campaign awareness | 75% reported exposure (24% unaided and a further 50% prompted) |
Response rate: Not reported | Campaign acceptability | 80% of those who saw campaign very positive/positive. Only 3% negative | |||
Sample size: Baseline survey n = 197 | Intention to have HIV test | 38% of those who had seen the campaign and were HIV negative (n = 279) said they would test more frequently due to the campaign | |||
Post-campaign survey n = 464 | |||||
Katzman et al. [16] | To examine the potential impact of the manifesto | Cross-sectional survey and focus groups (in English and Spanish) | Recruitment: Survey posted on web, left in 38 gay venues for mail-in and distributed by street intercepts. Method of focus group recruitment not stated | Campaign awareness | 84% seen or heard manifesto |
Response rate: 2506 surveys distributed in gay venues and 137 surveys returned (5.5%). 69 surveys from women and men without a partner excluded | Campaign acceptability | Of those who had seen it: 61% strongly agreed/agreed with the manifesto, 19% disagreed/strongly disagreed | |||
Sample size: Survey n = 103 | HIV testing | 13% had HIV test | |||
9 Focus groups (139 participants) with representation of gay men both HIV positive and negative | HIV status disclosure | 12% disclosed HIV status 10% asked partner to disclose status | |||
Sexual behaviour | 16% increased condom use | ||||
To assess impact | Cross-sectional survey | Recruitment: Via “gay spaces” across Canada | Campaign awareness | 79% average national exposure Top messages received “rethinks risks” 47%, “protect self and partner” 37% and “use condoms”35% | |
Response rate: Not reported | Campaign acceptability | 73% found messages appealing | |||
Sample size: N = 417 | Sexual behaviour | 48% report message prompted them to change “something” about sexual practices, but men were not asked about the direction of change | |||
The TASC Agency [27]* | Not stated | Cross sectional surveys (2006) and online survey (2007), focus groups and in-depth interviews | Recruitment: For surveys via Internet and a Pride event in Glasgow. Not stated for focus groups and interviews | Campaign awareness | Survey 2006: 82% had seen phase 1 and 2 poster images. 5.3% had visited the Equal website |
Response rate: Not reported | Online survey: 8/26 had previously seen the Phase 1 posters; 9/24 the Phase 2 posters and 15/25 the Phase 3 ones | ||||
Sample size: Survey 2006: 222 men responded. Analysis confined to men aged 25-40 years, N = 116 | Campaign acceptability | Survey 2006: Phase 1 posters 57% reported that they “Love’em” or “They’re good”; Phase 2 posters 53% | |||
Online survey: N = 27 | |||||
6 focus groups with 28 participants | |||||
10 interviews | |||||
McOwan et al. [9] | To evaluate effect of an HIV testing campaign | Retrospective case note review of GUM attendees – comparing the same time points across two years and comparing campaign clinic with two other sexual health clinics | Recruitment: Not applicable. Those testing in the three clinics were retrospectively identified through a central laboratory | HIV testing | In the campaign clinic 4.5 fold increase in numbers of men testing in 2000, n = 292, compared to 1999, n = 65, (p < 0.001), 14.0 fold increase in men of Southern European origin (n = 42 in 2000 vs. n = 3 in 1999, p < 0.001), 6.5 increase in Black men (n = 13 in 2000 vs. n = 2 in 1999, p = 0.003) and 9.5 increase in men under 25 (n = 57 in 2000 vs. n = 6 in 1999, p < 0.001) |
Response rate: Not applicable | No significant differences for these outcomes observed in two control clinics. Total number of men testing in 2000 = 236 and in 1999 = 239 (p = 0.982), Southern European men testing n = 37 and 25, respectively (p = 0.341), Black men testing n = 3 and 5, respectively (p = 0.864) and men aged less than 25 years n = 32 and 36, respectively (p = 0.807) | ||||
Sample size: See Results | Sexual behaviour | Unprotected anal intercourse (campaign clinic only) | |||
Pre campaign 35/65 (53.8%, 95% CI 41.0 - 66.3%) | |||||
Post campaign 156/292 (53.4%, 95% CI 47.5-59.1%) | |||||
Sherr et al. [17] | To evaluate permeation (picture recognition), recall of message, endorsement, and decision to have a test | Cross sectional survey | Recruitment: Two sexual health clinics | Campaign awareness | 80.1% reported seeing the campaign pictures |
Clinics attendees having an HIV test. In one clinic this included heterosexual men and women, and homosexual men requesting an HIV test and in the other all homosexual men | Decision to have HIV test | 25.5% recalled the message (half of this group had correct recall) | |||
Response rate: Not reported | 9.3% reported campaign played important part in decision to have a test | ||||
Sample size: | |||||
667 individuals completed questionnaire, of these 339 reported they were homosexual or bisexual | |||||
Dawson & Hartfield [18] | To look at exposure to and satisfaction with campaign | Repeat cross sectional surveys | Recruitment: Gay bars and a Pride event at different points in time | Campaign awareness | 1993 interviews – 73% familiar with comic |
Structured-interviews | Response rate: Not reported | 1993 clinic forms - 32% gay and bisexual clients who tested reported seeing the campaign | |||
Review of clinic HIV testing and voice mail calls | Sample size: | 1994 bar survey – 47% had seen comic strip | |||
Oct 1993 gay bar structured interviews - number unknown | 1994 rally survey – 44% had seen comic strip | ||||
July-Nov 1993 clinic review – number of case notes reviewed not reported | Campaign acceptability | 1993 interviews - Of those familiar, 89% positive. Negative comments mainly around format, such as confusing and hard to read | |||
May 1994 gay bar survey, n = 662 | 1994 rally survey – Of those who had seen it, 57% liked a lot and 41% thought OK | ||||
June 1994 Gay Pride Rally survey, n = 198 | Voice mail – weekly average of 200-400 calls. Report that most were positive | ||||
Griffith et al. [19] | To describe association between HIV educational campaigns and long-term testing trends between Sept 1985 – Sept. 1993. Of the 38 media interventions, 6 aimed at gay men and 2 at bisexual men | Continuous – prospective collection of demographic and behavioural data from all GUM attendees having an HIV test | Recruitment: Not applicable | HIV testing | Unable to extract data - trends in testing amongst homosexual and bisexual men annotated with media campaigns shown graphically. Authors report periods of peak testing generally corresponded temporally with increased media coverage |
Response rate: Not applicable | |||||
Sample size: | |||||
19 242 tested in three London sexual health clinics, UK | |||||
12 183 men (37.6% homosexual and 7.9% bisexual) |