Behavioral interventions reduce self-reported unprotected anal sex among MSM. These results indicate that HIV prevention for this population can work and should be supported. 
Results of previous studies provide a benchmark for expectations in new studies. Meta-analysis can inform future design and implementation in terms of sample size, target populations, settings, goals for process measures, and intervention content.
When effects differ by design variables, which are deliberately selected and planned, awareness of these characteristics may be beneficial to future designs. Researchers designing future small group and individual-level studies should keep in mind that to date, effects of the greatest magnitude have been observed in studies that used count outcomes and a shorter intervention span (up to 1 month).
Among small group and individual-level studies, effects were also greatest when the comparison condition included minimal to no HIV prevention content. Nevertheless, statistically significant favorable effects were also seen when the comparison condition included standard or other HIV prevention content. Researchers choosing the latter option for new studies should plan for larger sample sizes based on the smaller expected net intervention effect noted above.
When effects differ by implementation variables, which become evident as the study is conducted but are not usually selected or planned, caution may be advised so that future studies can reduce bias. Because intervention effects were somewhat stronger (though not statistically significantly so) in studies with a greater attrition in the comparison condition, differential retention may be a threat to validity. Extra effort should be given to retaining participants in comparison conditions.
Among community-level interventions, intervention effects were strongest among studies with random assignment of groups or communities. Therefore the inclusion of studies where assignment of groups or communities was by convenience did not exaggerate the summary effect. The greater effectiveness of interventions including more than 25% non-gay identifying MSM suggests that when they can be reached, these men may be more responsive than gay-identified men to risk reduction efforts. Non-gay identified MSM may have had less exposure to previous prevention messages, so their initial exposure may have a greater impact.
The greater effectiveness of interventions that include efforts to promote personal skills such as keeping condoms available and behavioral self-management indicates that such content merits strong consideration in development and delivery of new interventions for MSM. And the finding that interventions were most effective for majority white populations underscores the critical need for effective interventions for MSM of African and Latino descent.
Further research measuring the incidence of HIV and other STDs is needed. Because most studies were conducted among mostly white men in the US and Europe, more evaluations of interventions are needed for African American and Hispanic MSM as well as MSM in the developing world. More research is also needed to further clarify which behavioral strategies (e.g., reducing unprotected anal sex, having oral sex instead of anal sex, reducing number of partners, avoiding serodiscordant partners, strategic positioning, or reducing anal sex even with condom use) are most effective in reducing transmission among MSM, the messages most effective in promoting these behaviors, and the methods and settings in which these messages can be most effectively delivered.
Reducing the sexual risk behaviors of HIV+ individuals: outcome of a randomized controlled trial.
Testing behavioral interventions to increase safer sex practices of HIV+ individuals has the potential to significantly reduce the number of new infections. This study evaluated a behavioral intervention designed to reduce the sexual risk behaviors of HIV+individuals. HIV+individuals (N = 387) who reported engaging in unprotected sex with HIV- or partners of unknown serostatus were randomly assigned to (a) a single counseling session targeting problem areas identified by the participant in 3 possible intervention domains (i.e., condom use, negotiation, disclosure); (b) a single-session comprehensive intervention that covered all 3 intervention domains; (c) the same comprehensive intervention, plus 2 monthly booster sessions; or (d) a 3-session diet and exercise attention-control condition. The median number of unprotected sex acts decreased from 14 at baseline to 6, 6, and 4 at 4-, 8-, and 12-month follow-ups, respectively. A repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant decrease in unprotected sex acts across all groups across time. A significant Group x Time interaction revealed that the comprehensive-with-boosters group had the most unprotected sex at 8-month follow-up as compared to the other 3 groups. These findings suggest that a brief intervention can result in large reductions in HIV transmission risks among HIV+individuals, but the relative benefit of one intervention approach over another remains unclear.