Male partner antenatal attendance and HIV testing in eastern Uganda: a randomized facility-based intervention trial
Male partner antenatal attendance and HIV testing in eastern Uganda: a randomized facility-based intervention trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1758-2652-14-43
复制
发表时间：
2011-09-13
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
Tumwine, James K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Byamugisha, Robert;Astrom, Anne N.;Tumwine, James K.
背景资料：本研究的目的是评估向新的产前诊所就诊者的配偶发出书面邀请信对夫妇就诊和男性伴侣在随后的产前诊所就诊时接受艾滋病毒检测的影响。方法：该试验于2009年10月至2010年2月在姆巴莱区姆巴莱地区转诊医院的产前诊所进行，共有1060名新参加者，乌干达东部。干预措施包括向新产前护理人员的配偶发送邀请信，而对照组则收到一封关于产前护理的信息信，一份传单。主要结果指标是在为期四周的随访期间与男性伴侣一起接受产前护理的孕妇比例。使用随机序列将符合条件的孕妇随机分配到干预组或非干预组，该随机序列是使用随机序列发生器（RANDOM ORG）采用简单随机化程序计算机生成的。受访者，卫生工作者和研究助理被掩盖组assignment.Results：试验完成了530名妇女参加了每组。参与者按最初分配（意向治疗）进行分析。对于主要结局，在干预组和非干预组中，与伴侣一起参加产前检查的试验参与者的百分比分别为16.2%（86/530）和14.2%（75/530）（OR = 1.2; 95%CI：0.8，1.6）。对于次要结局，大多数的161名男性伴侣参加了产前检查诊所; 82/86（95%）的干预组和68/75（91%）的非干预组进行了HIV检测（OR = 2.1; 95%CI：0.6至7.5）。结论：干预和控制对夫妇产前检查的效果是相似的。此外，该试验表明，一个简单的干预，如给配偶的一封信，可以增加夫妇产前诊所的出勤率10%。值得注意的是，大多数到产前诊所就诊的男性伴侣接受了艾滋病毒检测。因此，为了进一步评价这一简单和具有成本效益的干预方法，需要进行有充分把握的研究，以评估其在增加伴侣参与产前诊所和预防母婴传播艾滋病毒方案方面的有效性。
Background: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effect of a written invitation letter to the spouses of new antenatal clinic attendees on attendance by couples and on male partner acceptance of HIV testing at subsequent antenatal clinic visits.Methods: The trial was conducted with 1060 new attendees from October 2009 to February 2010 in an antenatal clinic at Mbale Regional Referral Hospital, Mbale District, eastern Uganda. The intervention comprised an invitation letter delivered to the spouses of new antenatal attendees, while the control group received an information letter, a leaflet, concerning antenatal care. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of pregnant women who attended antenatal care with their male partners during a follow-up period of four weeks. Eligible pregnant women were randomly assigned to the intervention or non-intervention groups using a randomization sequence, which was computer generated utilizing a random sequence generator (RANDOM ORG) that employed a simple randomization procedure. Respondents, health workers and research assistants were masked to group assignments.Results: The trial was completed with 530 women enrolled in each group. Participants were analyzed as originally assigned (intention to treat). For the primary outcome, the percentage of trial participants who attended the antenatal clinic with their partners were 16.2% (86/530) and 14.2% (75/530) in the intervention and nonintervention groups, respectively (OR = 1.2; 95% CI: 0.8, 1.6). For the secondary outcome, most of the 161 male partners attended the antenatal clinic; 82 of 86 (95%) in the intervention group and 68 of 75 (91%) in the nonintervention group were tested for HIV (OR = 2.1; 95% CI: 0.6 to 7.5).Conclusions: The effect of the intervention and the control on couple antenatal attendance was similar. In addition, the trial demonstrated that a simple intervention, such as a letter to the spouse, could increase couple antenatal clinic attendance by 10%. Significantly, the majority of male partners who attended the antenatal clinic accepted HIV testing. Therefore, to further evaluate this simple and cost-effective intervention method, adequately powered studies are required to assess its effectiveness in increasing partner participation in antenatal clinics and the programme for prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV.