G Statistically sizeable: p <0.01 (two-tailed)this was the case for the
G Statistically significant: p < 0.01 (two-tailed)this was the case for the intervention (AOR = 2.0; 95 CI: 1.2 to 3.5) and non-intervention groups (AOR = 1.9; 95 CI: 1.0 to 3.6). In addition, the participant being a Christian (AOR = 1.7; 95 CI: 1.0 to 3.0) and their partner being salaried (AOR = 1.8; 95 CI: 1.0 to 3.3) were significantly associated with male partner acceptance of antenatal HIV testing (Table 2).Discussion As far as we are aware, this is the second randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effects of a written invitation letter to spouses of antenatal attendees on partner antenatal clinic attendance in sub-Saharan Africa. The effect of the intervention (invitation letter) and the control (information leaflet) on couple antenatal attendanceByamugisha et al. Journal of the International AIDS Society 2011, 14:43 http://www.jiasociety.org/content/14/1/Page 7 ofAssessed for eligibility:Excluded (n=23) - Declined to participate: 4 - Husband far away: 12 - Husband too busy: 3 - Husband fears testing for HIV:Enrolled/randomized:Allocated to intervention group:Allocated to non-intervention group:Lost to follow up: did not return on subsequent antenatal visit (s) within the 4-week follow-up period:Lost to follow up: did not return on subsequent antenatal visit (s) within the 4-week follow-up period:Analyzed by intention to treat for primary outcome:Analyzed by intention to treat for primary outcome:Analyzed per protocol for secondary outcome:Figure 1 Trial profile.Analyzed per protocol for secondary outcome:in the trial was similar. The invitation letter and the information leaflet increased couple attendance at the antenatal clinic from approximately 5  to 16 and 14 , respectively. A simple intervention letter to the spouse could increase couple attendance by 10 . This cost-effective intervention could be implemented in almost all African ANC clinics with PMTCT. The surprisingly equal effect in both arms of the trial could be because the invitation letter (intervention) and the information letter (control) had an official connotation and were perceived by the male partners to be credible as they originated from hospital. Therefore, these letters influenced male antenatal attendance decisions in similar ways, irrespective of the detailed content.A recent study, carried out in northern Uganda, has documented that the likelihood of male partner antenatal attendance was PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28534427 increased if adult males had been knowledgeable about antenatal treatment products and services and when they acquired well being data from wellbeing staff . The shortage of any substantial distinction between the intervention plus the PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26482300 management letter on few antenatal attendance might be discussed with the very low power of your demo as a result of the higher loss to stick to up of trial individuals. The level of male antenatal attendance during this trial is larger than one particular performed in northern Tanzania , but decrease than people documented in research from northern Uganda , central Kenya  and Khayelitsha, South Africa . The age teams of your adult men in these experiments ended up equivalent with these from the male partnersByamugisha et al. Journal with the Worldwide AIDS Culture 2011, Eleclazine fourteen:43 http://www.jiasociety.org/content/14/1/Page eight ofTable three Demographic qualities of study members in contrast concerning intervention (N = 290) and nonintervention groups (N = 310)Properties Study teams Intervention Nonn ( ) intervention n ( ) Age in yearsa 15-24 twenty five or even more Spot of residence Rural Urb.
Forum Role: Participant
Topics Started: 0
Replies Created: 0