Bulletin of the World Health Organization

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 6. Summary of meta-analysis results, by outcome and target population

Outcome No. of studies OR (95% CI) Q P for Q I2
Used a condom during last sexual encounter
Overall
    males and females 6 2.0* (1.4–2.8) 553.87 < 0.001 98.56
    males only 5 1.7* (1.1–2.7) 129.75 < 0.001 96.92
    females only 3 2.2 (0.5–8.7) 340.18 < 0.001 99.41
With casual partnera
    males and females 3 3.5* (2.2–5.4) 55.24 < 0.001 94.57
    males only 2 2.6* (2.1–3.1) 1.84 0.175 45.72
In general populationb
    males and females 4 2.1* (1.4–3.1) 519.62 < 0.001 98.85
    males only 3 1.7 (0.8–3.5) 103.32 < 0.001 98.06
Overall condom use, composite score
Overall
    males and females 6 2.1* (1.5–2.9) 645.37 < 0.001 98.76
    males only 5 2.0* (1.0–4.0) 416.63 < 0.001 99.04
    females only 3 1.9 (0.7–4.8) 162.29 < 0.001 98.77
In general populationb
    males and females 4 2.0* (1.5–2.8) 398.39 < 0.001 98.49
    males only 3 1.8 (0.8–4.0) 150.41 < 0.001 98.67

CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; * P < 0.05.

a Includes only studies that reported on condom use at the most recent sexual encounter with a casual/non-regular partner or a sex worker.

b Excluding Meekers (study population: male miners)14 and Lipovsek et al. (study population: clients of female sex workers).13

Note: The Q statistic indicates the presence or absence of study heterogeneity in meta-analysis, whereas I2 represents the degree of study heterogeneity. I2 ranges between 0% and 100%, with lower values representing less heterogeneity.