Evaluating a Structural and Behavioral HIV Risk Reduction Program for Black Men (MENCount)

December 4, 2018 updated by: Anita Raj, University of California, San Diego
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Making Employment Needs (MEN) Count intervention, an HIV intervention and prevention program for heterosexual Black men. The MEN Count model integrates HIV risk reduction and gender-equity counseling with housing and employment case management via multiple one-on-one sessions delivered by a peer case manager over 60-90 day period. MEN Count was developed and pilot tested using a Community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach via funding from a National Institutes of Health (NIH) R21, in Boston, Massachusetts. A more larger scale, two-armed quasi-experimental controlled trial design will be used to test MEN Count among Black men recruited/enrolled from an STD clinic and other community-recruitment methods in Washington, DC. Study participants (N=504) will be Black men reporting heterosexual risk for HIV [unprotected sex with a woman and 2+ female sex partners in the past 6 months] and either current unemployment or homeless in the past 6 months. To evaluate the effectiveness of MEN Count, a two-armed quasi-experimental design will be conducted in which participants will receive either MEN Count or an attention comparison program similar to MEN Count in structure. We will assess program impact on reduction in number of unprotected sex episodes and incident cases of STI (Chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis) via survey and STI testing, respectively, at baseline and 6 and 12 month follow-ups. Additionally, quality assurance and process evaluation efforts will be conducted to ensure high quality program adherence and delivery, as well as to support program replication should the model prove effective.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
455

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • District of Columbia
      • Washington, District of Columbia, United States, 20052
        • George Washington University

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 40 years (Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Genders Eligible for Study

Male

Description

Inclusion Criteria: Black men aged 18 and older, reporting heterosexual risk for HIV [unprotected sex with a woman and 2+ female sex partners in the past 6 months] and either current unemployment or homeless in the past 6 months.

Exclusion Criteria: planned to leave Washington D.C., Maryland, or Virginia in the next 6 months, were cognitively impaired (based on Folstein Mini-Mental Exam at recruitment or baseline testing), and/or had self-reported health status that prohibited them from participating in the program

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Prevention
  • Allocation: Non-Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: MEN Count
3 session HIV intervention including a) HIV risk reduction, inclusive of gender equity and healthy relationship counseling and b) case management support for stable employment and housing.
Behavioral: MEN Count
The MEN Count model integrates HIV risk reduction and gender-equity counseling with housing and employment case management via multiple one-on-one sessions delivered by a peer case manager over 60-90 day period.
Active Comparator: Comparison
An attention comparison program similar to the MEN Count intervention in structure (3 one-on-one sessions delivered over 60-90 days) but focused on stress reduction and healthy lifestyle.
Behavioral: Comparison
general health intervention for men, not inclusive of HIV or relationship health

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Condom Use/Unprotected Sex - Redefined as Sexual Risk - 12 Month Follow-up
Time Frame: 12 month follow-up
Behavioral assessment of the ratio of protected to total number of sex episodes -- changed to sexual risk inclusive of inconsistent condom use in past 90 days + multiple sex partners + sex trade involvement. Very low sexual risk was defined as having one partner and consistent condom use. Low sexual risk was defined as having multiple partners and consistent condom use OR one partner and no/inconsistent condom use. Medium sexual risk was defined as having multiple partners, no/inconsistent condom use and not participating in transactional sex. High risk was defined as having multiple partners, no/inconsistent condom use, and participating in transactional sex. Participants reporting sex with men in the prior 90 days or who reported that they themselves or (one of) their partner(s) was HIV-positive were excluded from the sexual risk outcome given the known differential HIV risk profile for these subpopulations and small numbers of participants in each.
12 month follow-up
Condom Use/Unprotected Sex - Redefined as Sexual Risk - 6 Month Follow-up
Time Frame: 6 month follow-up
Behavioral assessment of the ratio of protected to total number of sex episodes -- changed to sexual risk inclusive of inconsistent condom use in past 90 days + multiple sex partners + sex trade involvement. Very low sexual risk was defined as having one partner and consistent condom use. Low sexual risk was defined as having multiple partners and consistent condom use OR one partner and no/inconsistent condom use. Medium sexual risk was defined as having multiple partners, no/inconsistent condom use and not participating in transactional sex. High risk was defined as having multiple partners, no/inconsistent condom use, and participating in transactional sex. Participants reporting sex with men in the prior 90 days or who reported that they themselves or (one of) their partner(s) was HIV-positive were excluded from the sexual risk outcome given the known differential HIV risk profile for these subpopulations and small numbers of participants in each.
6 month follow-up

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Non-viral STI - 12 Month Follow-up
Time Frame: 12 month follow-up
HIV and STI testing via blood and urine tests was conducted; outcome based on non-viral STI to allow for incidence assessment and change over time
12 month follow-up
Non-viral STI - 6 Month Follow-up
Time Frame: 6 month follow-up
HIV and STI testing via blood and urine tests was conducted; outcome based on non-viral STI to allow for incidence assessment and change over time
6 month follow-up

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
University of California, San Diego

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Anita Raj, PhD, UCSD
  • Principal Investigator: Lisa Bowleg, PhD, George Washington University

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
March 1, 2013

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
April 1, 2017

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
May 1, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
September 22, 2012

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
September 25, 2012

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
September 26, 2012

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
December 28, 2018

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
December 4, 2018

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
December 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • R01MH096657 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract)

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings