The original PRS efficacy review, including studies published between 1988 and 1996, identified 24 evidence-based behavioral interventions. These interventions were summarized in the
Compendium of HIV Prevention Interventions with Evidence of Effectiveness (CDC, 1999) [1]. Refer to Review findings for more details about the original and updated findings. This original review was based on the
Compendium criteria. Since then PRS strengthened its criteria for identifying evidence-based, individual- and group-level behavioral interventions. More details about these criteria can be found at Efficacy criteria
Half of the 24 HIV behavioral interventions that were identified in the original
Compendium of HIV Prevention Interventions with Evidence of Effectiveness using the less rigorous
Compendium criteria meet either the
current best-evidence criteria or the
current promising-evidence criteria. There are 12 of the original 24 Compendium interventions that either (1) do not meet the best-evidence and promising-evidence criteria; or (2) have not been evaluated because they are community-level interventions.
Eight Compendium interventions are individual- (ILIs) or group-level (GLIs) interventions that do not meet the current criteria for best- or promising-evidence and are listed below, most commonly due to low retention rates or small analytical sample sizes. Most of these ILIs/GLIs fit in Tier III of the
Tiers of Evidence Framework.
Four Compendium interventions listed below are community-level interventions (CLIs), which have not yet been evaluated. Because most CLIs have study and design characteristics that do not lend themselves to evaluation with the ILIs and GLIs efficacy criteria, PRS, in consultation with expert methodologists and interventionists, is developing new efficacy criteria for community-level interventions. CDC expects that the review of CLIs will be completed by Spring, 2008.
CDC-funded programs using
DEBIs that are among the 4 CLIs not yet reviewed or among the 8 ILIs/GLIs not meeting the best-evidence or promising-evidence criteria, can continue implementing these interventions for the time being. Agencies that are planning to implement a new ILI or GLI are encouraged to select an intervention from among the
best-evidence or
promising-evidence ILI and GLI interventions.
KEY: HS=Heterosexual;
HIV+=HIV-positive; HR=High-risk; MSM=Men who have sex with men; DU=Drug
users; M=Males; F=Females; W=White; AA=African American; AI=American
Indian; H=Hispanic; API=Asian/Pacific Islander; O=Other racial/ethnic
group; GLI=group-level intervention; ILI=individual-level intervention
Individual-level and group-level interventions meeting previous Compendium criteria:
-
SISTA
Risk category: HS Adult
Sex: 100% F
Race: 100% AA
Delivery Unit: GLI
-
Skill Building
Risk category: DU
Sex: 100% F
Race: 64% H, 36% AA
Delivery Unit: GLI
Community-Level Interventions:
-
Community PROMISE
Risk category: DU, HR Youth, HS Adult, MSM
Sex: 45% M, 55% F
Race: 54% AA, 22% W, 19% H, 5% O
Delivery Unit: CLI, ILI
-
Mpowerment
Risk category: MSM
Sex: 100% M
Race: 81% W, 7% API, 6% H, 4% AA, 2% O
Delivery Unit: CLI, GLI, ILI
-
POL
Risk category: MSM
Sex: 100% M
Race: 86% W, 14% AA or H
Delivery Unit: CLI, GLI, ILI
-
RAPP
Risk category: HS Adult
Sex: 100% F
Race: 73% AA, 27% O
Delivery Unit: CLI, GLI, ILI
Go to top
|