Back

Investigation of mediating effects of sexual behaviours on the effect of a novel digital intervention on sexually transmitted reinfections: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Landray, I.; Carpenter, J.; Free, C.

2026-09-03 sexual and reproductive health
10.64898/2026.08.29.26361435 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Preventing sexually transmitted re-infections brings health benefits and can be significantly less costly than treating their sequelae. Safetxt is a potential novel digital intervention developed to promote safer sexual behaviours. However, a recent randomised controlled trial of safetxt found no effect on reinfection at 1 year (OR 1.13, 95%CI: 0.98-1.31). We investigated if safetxt's effect was mediated through sexually risky behaviours. Methods We used data from 6248 young people with STIs from 92 UK sexual health clinics. The direct and indirect effects of safetxt on reinfection were estimated using the counterfactual approach. Condom use at last sexual encounter, number of sexual partners and STI testing were assessed as mediators. These were analysed singly and together, using regression models and a formal weighting approach. The assumptions of each approach were considered and tested. Analyses were repeated in the subgroup showing the most promising effect of safetxt: men who have sex with men or with men and women (MSM/MSMW). Results No evidence was found for the total, indirect or direct effects differing from the null. Despite not being significant, for MSM/MSMW, some of safetxt's effect on reducing reinfection was identified as being offset through its effect on number of sexual partners. Conclusions There was no evidence that safetxt's effect on reinfection was mediated through changes in sexually risky behaviours. Adaptations to specifically target these behaviours are unlikely to improve safetxt's overall effect. However, improving safetxt's effect on the number of sexual partners a participant has may improve its effect for MSM/MSMW.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.