Using Intervention Mapping to develop a programme to prevent sexually transmittable infections, including HIV, among heterosexual migrant men

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is little experience with carefully developed interventions in the HIV/STI prevention field aimed at adult heterosexual target groups in the Netherlands. The ability to apply intervention development protocols, like Intervention Mapping, in daily practice outside of academia, is a matter of concern. An urgent need also exists for interventions aimed at the prevention of STI in migrant populations in the Netherlands. This article describes the theory and evidence based development of HIV/STI prevention interventions by the Municipal Public Health Service Rotterdam Area (MPHS), the Netherlands, for heterosexual migrant men with Surinamese, Dutch-Caribbean, Cape Verdean, Turkish and Moroccan backgrounds.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>First a needs assessment was carried out. Then, a literature review was done, key figures were interviewed and seven group discussions were held. Subsequently, the results were translated into specific objectives ("change objectives") and used in intervention development for two subgroups: men with an Afro-Caribbean background and unmarried men with a Turkish and Moroccan background. A matrix of change objectives was made for each subgroup and suitable theoretical methods and practical strategies were selected. Culturally-tailored interventions were designed and were pre-tested among the target groups.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>This development process resulted in two interventions for specific subgroups that were appreciated by both the target groups and the migrant prevention workers. The project took place in collaboration with a university center, which provided an opportunity to get expert advice at every step of the Intervention Mapping process. At relevant points of the development process, migrant health educators and target group members provided advice and feedback on the draft intervention materials.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This intervention development project indicates that careful well-informed intervention development using Intervention Mapping is feasible in the daily practice of the MPHS, provided that sufficient time and expertise on this approach is available. Further research should test the effectiveness of these interventions.</p

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)