Title |
A cluster randomized-controlled trial of a community mobilization intervention to change gender norms and reduce HIV risk in rural South Africa: study design and intervention
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Public Health, August 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12889-015-2048-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Audrey Pettifor, Sheri A. Lippman, Amanda M Selin, Dean Peacock, Ann Gottert, Suzanne Maman, Dumisani Rebombo, Chirayath M. Suchindran, Rhian Twine, Kathryn Lancaster, Tamu Daniel, F. Xavier Gómez-Olivé, Kathleen Kahn, Catherine MacPhail |
Abstract |
Community mobilization (CM) interventions show promise in changing gender norms and preventing HIV, but few have been based on a defined mobilization model or rigorously evaluated. The purpose of this paper is to describe the intervention design and implementation and present baseline findings of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of a two-year, theory-based CM intervention that aimed to change gender norms and reduce HIV risk in rural Mpumalanga province, South Africa. Community Mobilizers and volunteer Community Action Teams (CATs) implemented two-day workshops, a range of outreach activities, and leadership engagement meetings. All activities were mapped onto six theorized mobilization domains. The intervention is being evaluated by a randomized design in 22 communities (11 receive intervention). Cross-sectional, population-based surveys were conducted with approximately 1,200 adults ages 18-35 years at baseline and endline about two years later. This is among the first community RCTs to evaluate a gender transformative intervention to change norms and HIV risk using a theory-based, defined mobilization model, which should increase the potential for impact on desired outcomes and be useful for future scale-up if proven effective. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02129530. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
South Africa | 2 | 29% |
United States | 2 | 29% |
Canada | 1 | 14% |
Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Sierra Leone | 1 | <1% |
United States | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 188 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 40 | 21% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 16% |
Student > Master | 29 | 15% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 5% |
Other | 9 | 5% |
Other | 26 | 14% |
Unknown | 47 | 25% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Social Sciences | 37 | 19% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 16% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 26 | 14% |
Psychology | 17 | 9% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 3% |
Other | 23 | 12% |
Unknown | 51 | 27% |