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