Skip to main content

Table 2 Reporting on quality of included interventions (25 interventions reported in 45 papers included in the review)

From: Is it time to RE-AIM? A systematic review of economic empowerment as HIV prevention intervention for adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa using the RE-AIM framework

  Selection bias (random sequence generation) Selection bias (allocation concealment) Performance bias Detection bias Attrition bias (incomplete outcome data) Reporting bias (selective reporting) Other sources of bias % risk of bias Comments
Abdool Karim et al. (2015) [68]; Humphries et al., (2017) [69], South Africa Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk 14.3% Study design: quantitative (comparison of treatment and control groups)
Adoho et al. (2014) [70], Liberia Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear 28.6% Study design: quantitative (comparison of two treatment groups to a control group)
Austrian and Muthengi (2014) [71]; Muthengi (2014) [72], Uganda High risk Unclear Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear 42.9% Study design: mixed methods (comparison of two treatment groups to a control group)
Baird et al. (2012) [73]; Baird et al. (2013) [74], Malawi Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk 14.3% Study design: mixed methods (pre- and post-test comparison for intervention and control groups)
Bandiera et al. (2012) [75]; Bandiera et al. (2018) [76], Uganda Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk 14.3% Study design: quantitative (pre- and post-test comparison for intervention and control groups)
Bazika (2007) [77], Congo Unclear Unclear Low risk Low risk Unclear Unclear Unclear 71.4% Study design: quantitative (pre- and post-test assessment of intervention participants)
Cho et al. (2018) [78], Kenya Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk 14.3% Study design: quantitative (comparison between intervention and control groups)
Longitudinal study with annual repeated measures over 4 years
Cluver et al. (2016) [79], South Africa Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk 14.3% Study design: quantitative (comparison between cash alone and integrated cash plus care intervention for HIV-risk reduction)
Prospective longitudinal study
de Walque et al. (2012) [80]; de Walque et al. (2014) [81], Tanzania Low risk High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk 14.3% Study design: quantitative (pre- and post-test comparison for intervention and control groups)
Dunbar et al. (2010) [82]; Dunbar et al. (2014) [83], Zimbabwe Low risk High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk 14.3% Study design: quantitative (pre- and post-test comparison for intervention and control groups)
Erulkar and Chong (2005) [84]; Hall et al. (2006) [85], Kenya High risk High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear 42.9% Study design: quantitative (pre- and post-assessment of intervention participants)
Longitudinal study
Goodman et al. (2014) [86], Kenya Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk 28.6% Study design: quantitative (cross-sectional comparison among 3 cohorts)
Hallfors et al. (2011) [22]; Hallfors et al. (2015) [23]; Luseno et al. (2015) [87], Zimbabwe Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk 14.3% Study design: quantitative (comparison between intervention and control groups)
Longitudinal study with annual repeated measures over 3 years
Handa et al. (2014) [88]; Rosenberg et al. (2014) [89], Kenya Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk 14.3% Study design: quantitative (comparison between intervention and control groups)
Longitudinal study with repeated measures
Jewkes et al. (2014) [90],South Africa High risk High risk Low risk Low risk Unclear Low risk Unclear 57.1% Study design: mixed methods (interviews and quantitative time series design for pre- and post-intervention assessment)
Khoza et al. (2018) [91], South Africa Low risk Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Low risk Unclear 71.4% Study design: qualitative (using interviews)
Kim et al. (2009) [92]; Pronyk et al. (2006) [93]; Kim et al. (2007) [94]; Pronyk et al. (2008) [95], South Africa Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk 0.0% Study design: mixed methods pre- and post-test comparison of intervention and control group)
Kohler and Thornton (2012) [96], Malawi Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk 14.3% Study design: quantitative (pre- and post-comparison between intervention and control groups) (longitudinal study)
Nyqvist et al. (2015) [97]; Nyqvist et al.(2018) [98], Lesotho Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk 14.3% Study design: quantitative (pre- and post-comparison of intervention and control groups)
O’Neill Berry et al., (2013) [99], Lesotho Unclear High risk High risk Low risk High risk Low risk High risk 71.4% Study design: mixed method (pre- and post-test comparison of intervention and control group, as well as follow-up observations of intervention group)
Pettifor et al. (2016) [18]; Pettifor et al. (2016b) [100], South Africa Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk 0.0% Study design: quantitative (pre- and post-comparison of intervention and control groups)
Rotheram- Borus et al. (2012) [101], Uganda Unclear High risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Unclear 42.9% Study design: quantitative
Had a delayed intervention group. Pre- and post-test comparison between immediate intervention and delayed intervention group
Ssewamala et al., (2009) [39]; Ssewamala et al. (2010) [102]; Ssewamala et al. (2010b) [26]; Ismayilova et al. (2012), Uganda Low risk Unclear Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk 14.3% Study design: quantitative (pre- and post-comparison of intervention and control groups)
Stark et al. (2018) [41]; Falb et al. (2016) [104], Ethiopia Low risk Unclear Low risk Unclear High risk Low risk Unclear 57.1% Study design: quantitative (pre- and posttest comparison for intervention and control groups).
Reported null findings that the intervention did not seem to keep the participants in school, nor influence out-of-school girls to return to school
Visser et al. (2015) [105]; Visser et al. (2018) [106], South Africa High risk Unclear Low risk High risk High risk Low risk Unclear 71.4% Study design: mixed method (quasi-experimental post-intervention assessment between intervention and control group and focus group discussions). Utilized focus group discussions to generate information on strategies to sustain ISIBINDI intervention