The Men’s Safer Sex project: intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial of an interactive digital intervention to increase condom use in men

Background: This report details the development of the Men’s Safer Sex website and the results of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT), health economic assessment and qualitative evaluation. Objectives: (1) Develop the Men’s Safer Sex website to address barriers to condom use; (2) determi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Julia V Bailey, Rosie Webster, Rachael Hunter, Mark Griffin, Nicholas Freemantle, Greta Rait, Claudia Estcourt, Susan Michie, Jane Anderson, Judith Stephenson, Makeda Gerressu, Chee Siang Ang, Elizabeth Murray
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: NIHR Journals Library 2016-12-01
Series:Health Technology Assessment
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20910
id doaj-69ed2b869f5c4bdf8e3da3ceb7ed0b75
record_format Article
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Julia V Bailey
Rosie Webster
Rachael Hunter
Mark Griffin
Nicholas Freemantle
Greta Rait
Claudia Estcourt
Susan Michie
Jane Anderson
Judith Stephenson
Makeda Gerressu
Chee Siang Ang
Elizabeth Murray
spellingShingle Julia V Bailey
Rosie Webster
Rachael Hunter
Mark Griffin
Nicholas Freemantle
Greta Rait
Claudia Estcourt
Susan Michie
Jane Anderson
Judith Stephenson
Makeda Gerressu
Chee Siang Ang
Elizabeth Murray
The Men’s Safer Sex project: intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial of an interactive digital intervention to increase condom use in men
Health Technology Assessment
author_facet Julia V Bailey
Rosie Webster
Rachael Hunter
Mark Griffin
Nicholas Freemantle
Greta Rait
Claudia Estcourt
Susan Michie
Jane Anderson
Judith Stephenson
Makeda Gerressu
Chee Siang Ang
Elizabeth Murray
author_sort Julia V Bailey
title The Men’s Safer Sex project: intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial of an interactive digital intervention to increase condom use in men
title_short The Men’s Safer Sex project: intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial of an interactive digital intervention to increase condom use in men
title_full The Men’s Safer Sex project: intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial of an interactive digital intervention to increase condom use in men
title_fullStr The Men’s Safer Sex project: intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial of an interactive digital intervention to increase condom use in men
title_full_unstemmed The Men’s Safer Sex project: intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial of an interactive digital intervention to increase condom use in men
title_sort men’s safer sex project: intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial of an interactive digital intervention to increase condom use in men
publisher NIHR Journals Library
series Health Technology Assessment
issn 1366-5278
2046-4924
publishDate 2016-12-01
description Background: This report details the development of the Men’s Safer Sex website and the results of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT), health economic assessment and qualitative evaluation. Objectives: (1) Develop the Men’s Safer Sex website to address barriers to condom use; (2) determine the best design for an online RCT; (3) inform the methods for collecting and analysing health economic data; (4) assess the Sexual Quality of Life (SQoL) questionnaire and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and (5) explore clinic staff and men’s views of online research methodology. Methods: (1) Website development: we combined evidence from research literature and the views of experts (n = 18) and male clinic users (n = 43); (2) feasibility RCT: 159 heterosexually active men were recruited from three sexual health clinics and were randomised by computer to the Men’s Safer Sex website plus usual care (n = 84) or usual clinic care only (n = 75). Men were invited to complete online questionnaires at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months, and sexually transmitted infection (STI) diagnoses were recorded from clinic notes at 12 months; (3) health economic evaluation: we investigated the impact of using different questionnaires to calculate utilities and QALYs (the EQ-5D-3L and SQoL questionnaire), and compared different methods to collect resource use; and (4) qualitative evaluation: thematic analysis of interviews with 11 male trial participants and nine clinic staff, as well as free-text comments from online outcome questionnaires. Results: (1) Software errors and clinic Wi-Fi access presented significant challenges. Response rates for online questionnaires were poor but improved with larger vouchers (from 36% with £10 to 50% with £30). Clinical records were located for 94% of participants for STI diagnoses. There were no group differences in condomless sex with female partners [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.96]. New STI diagnoses were recorded for 8.8% (7/80) of the intervention group and 13.0% (9/69) of the control group (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.89). (2) Health-care resource data were more complete using patient files than questionnaires. The probability that the intervention is cost-effective is sensitive to the source of data used and whether or not data on intended pregnancies are included. (3) The pilot RCT fitted well around clinical activities but 37% of the intervention group did not see the Men’s Safer Sex website and technical problems were frustrating. Men’s views of the Men’s Safer Sex website and research procedures were largely positive. Conclusions: It would be feasible to conduct a large-scale RCT using clinic STI diagnoses as a primary outcome; however, technical errors and a poor response rate limited the collection of online self-reported outcomes. The next steps are (1) to optimise software for online trials, (2) to find the best ways to integrate digital health promotion with clinical services, (3) to develop more precise methods for collecting resource use data and (4) to work out how to overcome barriers to digital intervention testing and implementation in the NHS. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18649610. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 91. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
url https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20910
work_keys_str_mv AT juliavbailey themenssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT rosiewebster themenssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT rachaelhunter themenssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT markgriffin themenssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT nicholasfreemantle themenssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT gretarait themenssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT claudiaestcourt themenssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT susanmichie themenssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT janeanderson themenssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT judithstephenson themenssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT makedagerressu themenssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT cheesiangang themenssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT elizabethmurray themenssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT juliavbailey menssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT rosiewebster menssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT rachaelhunter menssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT markgriffin menssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT nicholasfreemantle menssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT gretarait menssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT claudiaestcourt menssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT susanmichie menssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT janeanderson menssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT judithstephenson menssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT makedagerressu menssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT cheesiangang menssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
AT elizabethmurray menssafersexprojectinterventiondevelopmentandfeasibilityrandomisedcontrolledtrialofaninteractivedigitalinterventiontoincreasecondomuseinmen
_version_ 1725271984325001216
spelling doaj-69ed2b869f5c4bdf8e3da3ceb7ed0b752020-11-25T00:45:00ZengNIHR Journals LibraryHealth Technology Assessment1366-52782046-49242016-12-01209110.3310/hta2091010/131/01The Men’s Safer Sex project: intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial of an interactive digital intervention to increase condom use in menJulia V Bailey0Rosie Webster1Rachael Hunter2Mark Griffin3Nicholas Freemantle4Greta Rait5Claudia Estcourt6Susan Michie7Jane Anderson8Judith Stephenson9Makeda Gerressu10Chee Siang Ang11Elizabeth Murray12E-Health unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UKE-Health unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UKPRIMENT Clinical Trials Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UKPRIMENT Clinical Trials Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UKPRIMENT Clinical Trials Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UKPRIMENT Clinical Trials Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UKBarts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Barts Sexual Health Centre, Queen Mary University of London, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, UKResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UKHomerton Sexual Health Services, Homerton Teaching Hospitals, London, UKDepartment of Reproductive Health, Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, UKDepartment of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UKEngineering and Digital Arts, University of Kent, Kent, UKE-Health unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UKBackground: This report details the development of the Men’s Safer Sex website and the results of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT), health economic assessment and qualitative evaluation. Objectives: (1) Develop the Men’s Safer Sex website to address barriers to condom use; (2) determine the best design for an online RCT; (3) inform the methods for collecting and analysing health economic data; (4) assess the Sexual Quality of Life (SQoL) questionnaire and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and (5) explore clinic staff and men’s views of online research methodology. Methods: (1) Website development: we combined evidence from research literature and the views of experts (n = 18) and male clinic users (n = 43); (2) feasibility RCT: 159 heterosexually active men were recruited from three sexual health clinics and were randomised by computer to the Men’s Safer Sex website plus usual care (n = 84) or usual clinic care only (n = 75). Men were invited to complete online questionnaires at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months, and sexually transmitted infection (STI) diagnoses were recorded from clinic notes at 12 months; (3) health economic evaluation: we investigated the impact of using different questionnaires to calculate utilities and QALYs (the EQ-5D-3L and SQoL questionnaire), and compared different methods to collect resource use; and (4) qualitative evaluation: thematic analysis of interviews with 11 male trial participants and nine clinic staff, as well as free-text comments from online outcome questionnaires. Results: (1) Software errors and clinic Wi-Fi access presented significant challenges. Response rates for online questionnaires were poor but improved with larger vouchers (from 36% with £10 to 50% with £30). Clinical records were located for 94% of participants for STI diagnoses. There were no group differences in condomless sex with female partners [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.96]. New STI diagnoses were recorded for 8.8% (7/80) of the intervention group and 13.0% (9/69) of the control group (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.89). (2) Health-care resource data were more complete using patient files than questionnaires. The probability that the intervention is cost-effective is sensitive to the source of data used and whether or not data on intended pregnancies are included. (3) The pilot RCT fitted well around clinical activities but 37% of the intervention group did not see the Men’s Safer Sex website and technical problems were frustrating. Men’s views of the Men’s Safer Sex website and research procedures were largely positive. Conclusions: It would be feasible to conduct a large-scale RCT using clinic STI diagnoses as a primary outcome; however, technical errors and a poor response rate limited the collection of online self-reported outcomes. The next steps are (1) to optimise software for online trials, (2) to find the best ways to integrate digital health promotion with clinical services, (3) to develop more precise methods for collecting resource use data and (4) to work out how to overcome barriers to digital intervention testing and implementation in the NHS. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18649610. Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 91. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20910