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 5. Random effects model meta-analysis of overall condom use composite measure
| Study | Subgroup within study | Outcome | Statistics |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | Za | P | |||
| Agha et al., 2001 |
Males and females | Condom use last sexual encounter | 3.6 (2.7–4.8) | 8.9 | 0.000 |
| Lipovsek et al., 2010 |
Males | Condom use composite with FSW | 3.7 (3.2–4.2) | 17.7 | 0.000 |
| Meekers, 2000 |
Males | Condom use composite | 1.5 (1.1–2.1) | 2.4 | 0.014 |
| Plautz & Meekers, 2007 |
Females | Condom use composite | 4.0 (3.3–4.8) | 14.5 | 0.000 |
| Plautz & Meekers, 2007 |
Males | Condom use composite | 2.9 (2.5–3.4) | 12.6 | 0.000 |
| Van Rossem & Meekers, 2000 |
Females | Condom use composite | 1.5 (1.0–2.3) | 1.8 | 0.080 |
| Van Rossem & Meekers, 2000 |
Males | Condom use composite | 1.9 (1.2–3.0) | 2.9 | 0.004 |
| Van Rossem & Meekers, 2007 |
Females | Condom use composite | 1.1 (1.1–1.2) | 4.3 | 0.000 |
| Van Rossem & Meekers, 2007 |
Males | Condom use composite | 1.0 (1.0–1.1) | 1.9 | 0.062 |
| Pooled | – | – | 2.1 (1.5–2.9) | 4.4 | 0.000 |
CI, confidence interval; FSW, Female Sex Worker; OR, odds ratio.
a The Z-test is an additional test of heterogeneity and reflects the deviation from the mean of the combined effect size divided by the standard error across included studies.