Skip to main content

Table 2 Studies That Reported Condom Use Not Included In Meta-Analysis

From: School-based sexual health education interventions to prevent STI/HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Intervention Scale used to measure condom use Finding
At wood et al. 2012 Use/non-use score Significant effect of increased consistency of condom use in the last three months at 9-month follow-up period for sexually active participants at baseline and controlling for baseline condom use (B 9mth  = 0.032, p < 0.05).
Burnett et al. 2011 14-item scale Statistically significant difference in positive direction between the intervention and control group of the study (F = 32.39, p < 0.001).
Brieger et al. 2001 Measured modern contraceptive use including condom use, pills and foaming tablets. Found significantly increased reported modern contraceptive use in the intervention group compared to the control (Fisher’s exact p = 0.004).
Denison et al. 2012 Use/non-use score No evidence of difference in reported condom between the intervention and control group at follow up (aOR = 0.93, 95 % CI = 0.57–1.53)
Esere 2008 A 4-point Likert At-Risk Sexual Behaviour Scale which include ‘do not use condoms while having sex’ as a component of the scale. Significant difference between the intervention and control group (F = 95.93, p < 0.05).
James et al. 2005 Use/non-use score The intervention (reading Laduma once) was found to have no significant effect on Consistent condom use six weeks post intervention.
James et al. 2006 Consistent use of condom in the preceding six months was measured by assessing whether condom was used all the time, sometimes or not at all. Full implementation group used condom more at last sex (B = −0.80, SE = 0.40, Wald (1, 57) = 4.16, p < 0.05, OR = 0.45). However, no effect was found for partial implementation group compared with the full implementation (B = −0.21, SE = 0.41, Wald (1,157) = 0.27, p = 0.60, OR = 0.81)
Karnell et al. 2006 Measured frequency of condom use on a scale of 1 (never) to 6 (always). Participants in the intervention group have significantly higher scores than those in the control group (p < 0.05).
Mba et al. 2007 Practised or intended to practised STI prevention technique (specifically condom use). All sexual active participants in the intervention group practised or intended to practise STI prevention technique at six-week follow up compared to 18 participants at baseline. However, in the control group no change before and after the intervention.
Rijsdijk et al. 2011 Condom use measured with four-item condom use behaviour (e.g., How often have you obtained a condom in the past 6 months” and “in the past 6 months, did you use a condom when having sex” α = 0.84) No significant effects of the intervention was found in ‘past performance behaviour’ including condom use (F = 0.46).
Tibbits et al. 2011 Use/non-use score Significant effect in the positive direction (β = −0.16, SE = 0.08, p < 0.05) for risk at last sex (including condom use with partner at last sex) among virgins at baseline. However, non-significant effect was found for all participants (virgins and non-virgins at baseline). Similarly, non-significant effect was found for condom less sex refusal outcome for all participants including virgins at baseline. Similarly, no difference observed in proportion of participants that reported sexual intercourse in consistent condom use at wave 4 and wave 5 of the study.