Skip to main content

Table 5 Summary of Findings comparison 1

From: Self-management interventions for adolescents living with HIV: a systematic review

Summary of findings: Self-management interventions compared to control in adolescents living with HIV

Patient or population: Adolescents living with HIV; Setting: Low-, middle-, and high-income countries; Intervention: Self-management interventions with 1–2 components; Comparison: Usual care

Outcome

Follow-up

Pooled effect (95%CI)

No. of participants (studies)

Certainty of evidence (GRADE)

Comments

Confidence

3 months

MD 0.35 (0.01 to 0.69)

33 (1 trial)

VERY LOW a,b,c

HIV self-management interventions compared to usual care for adolescents living with HIV may increase confidence at 3-month follow-up and may make little or no difference to confidence at 4-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups, but the evidence is very uncertain.

4 months

MD 0.00 (−0.26 to 0.26)

96 (1 trial)

MD 0.35 (−2.12 to 2.82)

61 (1 trial)

6 months

MD 0.14 (−0.32 to 0.60)

31 (1 trial)

9 months

MD 0.10 (−0.17 to 0.37)

91 (1 trial)

12 months

MD 0.21 (−0.22 to 0.64)

31 (1 trial)

Adherence (self-reported)

3 months

SMD 0.19 (−0.09 to 0.48)

198 (3 trials)

VERY LOW a,b,c

HIV self-management interventions compared to usual care for adolescents living with HIV may make little or no difference to self-reported adherence at 3-, 6- and 9-month follow-ups, and may increase adherence at 12-month follow-up, but the evidence is very uncertain.

6 months

SMD 0.71 (−0.02 to 1.44)

31 (1 trial)

9 months

SMD 0.11 (−0.30 to 0.52)

91 (1 RCT)

12 months

SMD 1.16 (0.39 to 1.93)

31 (1 trial)

Adherence (Electronic pill monitoring)

4 months

SMD 0.29 (− 0.21 to 0.8)

61 (1 trial)

VERY LOW a,b,c

HIV self-management interventions compared to usual care for adolescents living with HIV may make little or no difference to adherence at 4-month follow-up, but the evidence is very uncertain.

Sexual risk behaviour

4 months

MD 0.4 (−0.76 to 1.56)

96 (1 trial)

VERY LOW a,b,c

HIV self-management interventions compared to usual care for adolescents living with HIV may make little or no difference to sexual risk behaviour at 4- and 9-month follow-ups, but the evidence is very uncertain.

9 months

MD −0.90 (−2.39 to 0.59)

91 (1 trial)

Viral load (log 10)

4 months

MD −0.12 (− 0.45 to 0.2)

157 (2 trials)

LOW a,b

HIV self-management interventions compared to usual care for adolescents living with HIV may make little or no difference to viral load at 4- and 9-month follow-ups. At 6- and 12-month follow-ups, HIV self-management interventions compared to usual care may decrease viral load, but the evidence is very uncertain.

6 months

MD −1.70 (−2.65 to − 0.75)

30 (1 trial)

VERY LOW a,b,c

9 months

MD −0.02 (− 0.30 to 0.26)

237 (2 trials)

LOW a,b

12 months

MD −1.00 (− 1.89 to −0.11)

31 (1 trial)

VERY LOW a,b,c

Depression

3 months

SMD −0.27 (− 0.56 to 0.01)

194 (3 trials)

VERY LOW a,b,c

HIV self-management interventions compared to usual care for adolescents living with HIV may make little or no difference to depression at 3-, 6-, 9- and 12-month follow-ups, but the evidence is very uncertain.

6 months

SMD −0.57 (−1.29 to 0.15)

31 (1 trial)

9 months

SMD −0.12 (− 0.48 to 0.25)

117 (2 trials)

12 months

SMD −0.26 (− 0.97 to 0.45)

31 (1 trial)

  1. CI Confidence interval, MD Mean difference, SMD Standardised mean difference
  2. GRADE Working Group: Grades of evidence
  3. High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
  4. Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
  5. Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
  6. Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
  7. Footnotes: Explanation of GRADE certainty of evidence
  8. a Downgraded by 1 for serious concerns about risk of bias in at least one domain
  9. b Downgraded by 1 for indirectness, as studies did not only include adolescents (age 10 to 19)
  10. c Downgraded by 1 for serious concerns about imprecision with wide 95%CI intervals and small sample sizes