Effects of condom social marketing on condom use in developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 1990–2010
Michael D Sweat, Julie Denison, Caitlin Kennedy, Virginia Tedrow & Kevin O'Reilly
Volume 90, Number 8, August 2012, 613-622A
Table 3. Assessment of methodological rigour of studies on condom use
| Study | Cohort | Control/ comparison group | Pre–post design | Participants randomly assigned to intervention | Participants randomly selected for assessment | Follow-up ≥ 80% | Comparison groups equivalent at baseline |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sociodemographically | In outcome measure | |||||||
| Agha et al., 2001 |
No | Yes | No | No | Yes | NA | NA | NA |
| Lipovsek et al., 2010 |
No | Yes | No | NA | Yes | NA | NA | NA |
| Meekers, 2000 |
No | No | Yes | NA | Yes | NA | No | NA |
| Plautz & Meekers, 2007 |
No | No | Yes | No | Yes | NA | No | NA |
| Van Rossem & Meekers, 2007 |
No | Yesa | No | NA | Yes | NA | NA | NA |
| Van Rossem & Meekers, 2000 |
No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | NA | No | Yes |
NA, not available.
a High versus low exposure to the same intervention.