Counselling behavioural interventions for HIV, STI and

viral hepatitis among key populations: a systematic

review of effectiveness, values and preferences, and
cost studies
Introduction: Key populations (sex workers, men who have sex with men, people
who inject drugs, people in prisons and other closed settings, and trans and gender
diverse individuals) are disproportionately affected by HIV, sexually transmitted
infections (STIs) and viral hepatitis (VH). Counselling behavioural interventions are
widely used, but their impact on HIV/STI/VH acquisition is unclear.

Methods: To inform World Health Organization guidelines, we conducted a

systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness, values and preferences, and
cost studies about counselling behavioural interventions with key populations. We
searched CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed and EMBASE for studies published between
January 2010 and December 2022; screened abstracts; and extracted data in
duplicate. The effectiveness review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
with HIV/STI/VH incidence outcomes; secondary review outcomes of unprotected
sex, needle/syringe sharing and mortality were captured if studies also included
primary review outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane
Collaboration tool, generated pooled risk ratios through random effects meta-
analysis and summarized findings in GRADE evidence profiles. Values and
preferences and cost data were summarized descriptively.

Results: We identified nine effectiveness, two values and preferences, and two cost
articles. Meta-analysis of six RCTs showed no statistically significant effect of
counselling behavioural interventions on HIV incidence (1280 participants;
combined risk ratio [RR]: 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-1.20) or STI
incidence (3783 participants; RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.74-1.31). One RCT with 139
participants showed possible effects on hepatitis C virus incidence. There was no
effect on secondary review outcomes of unprotected (condomless) sex (seven
RCTs; 1811 participants; RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-1.02) and needle/syringe sharing
(two RCTs; 564 participants; RR 0.72; 95% CI: 0.32-1.63). There was moderate
certainty in the lack of effect across outcomes. Two values and preferences studies
found that participants liked specific counselling behavioural interventions. Two
cost studies found reasonable intervention costs.

Discussion: Evidence was limited and mostly on HIV, but showed no effect of
counselling behavioural interventions on HIV/VH/STI incidence among key
populations.
Conclusions: While there may be other benefits, the choice to provide counselling
behavioural interventions for key populations should be made with an
understanding of the potential limitations on incidence outcomes.

Keywords: HIV; [hepatitis, viral, human] systematic review; behaviour; counselling;

sexually transmitted diseases; vulnerable populations.