An interventional study of CPOL group training in HIV and Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI), sponsored by Africa Health Research Institute. Not yet recruiting at 1 site in South Africa. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 28 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-08-03.
Sponsored by Africa Health Research Institute · Not applicable, Interventional, and Prevention
Among 30 studies in Sexually Transmitted Diseases with a site in South Africa — 2 open to participants now, 3 under way, 1 of them phase 3. Sexually Transmitted Diseases · South Africa.
Among the 30 studies in Sexually Transmitted Diseases with a site in South Africa, this one is the 25th largest by planned enrollment of the 27 interventional ones that give a count, is the only one that started in 2026, is one of 15 with no phase, and was the 30th registered.
523 studies on the registry are indexed under Sexually Transmitted Diseases; 77 are open to participants now.
Browse Sexually Transmitted Diseases studies →2 of the 30 studies in Sexually Transmitted Diseases with a site in South Africa are open now. Recruiting first, the newest first:
Wits RHI Research Centre Clinical Research Site · Sites in South Africa
Ages 16–20 · Women only · Healthy volunteers
A study can be open while its sites in South Africa have not opened yet or have stopped. Only those recruiting at a site in South Africa →
Of the 47 Sexually Transmitted Diseases studies recruiting now, 29 (62%) set no upper age limit and 16 (34%) stop at 75 or younger; 22 take children under 18; 33 take healthy volunteers.
This study: 18 Years to 28 Years · all sexes · healthy volunteers too.
The full table on the hub →This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
30 studies; the count open now beside each. This study's row is marked.
A study in two phases is counted once above. Listed by phase, each with its combined phases: Phase 1 3 · Phase 2 4 · Phase 3 7
First in 1999; this study’s year is marked. 1 started in 2026.
This study's planned enrollment of 60 is below the median of 449 across 425 interventional studies indexed under Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
Median enrollment 564 across the 27 interventional studies, 675 across the 3 observational. Of the 26 that completed or were terminated, 6 (23%) have results posted.
This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
3 of 30 have an industry lead sponsor. The 10 most frequent:
Africa Health Research Institute is the lead sponsor of 6 studies on the registry; 3 are open to participants now.
Africa Health Research Institute has 2 studies filed under Sexually Transmitted Diseases — fewer than ten, so there is no comparison to draw.
None of the studies under way reaches primary completion within a year.
Among the 30 studies in Sexually Transmitted Diseases with a site in South Africa, from their registry updates:
Nothing recorded among them since 2026-09-25.
This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.
The Community Popular Opinion Leader (CPOL) is an intervention dveloped in the United States which identifies, trains, and enlists key opinion leaders within communities to deliver messages to peers and help link them to services. This project involves testing the feasibility and acceptability of such a localized version of the CPOL intervention in rural South Africa. This will be achieved through a pilot intervention in three purposively selected communities in the Hlabisa sub-district of uMkhanyakude district, KwaZulu-Natal. The investigators will select potential peer leaders in three ways (at random; based on nominations by peers; based on statistical analysis of previously collected social network data). Peer leaders will be invited to attend four weekly training sessions to learn about HIV prevention and persuasive communication. They will then be coached to start HIV prevention conversations with peers, including provision of HIV self-test kits and linkage to healthcare services. The investigators will evaluate this pilot using group discussions, in-depth interviews and brief pre/post questionnaires with session facilitators, peer leaders, contacted peers and healthcare providers. The investigators will analyse the data collected with the Practical, Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) dissemination and implementation framework, identifying factors likely to affect Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM).
The CPOL intervention is a local adaptation of an intervention package developed with Black men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) in the United States. This pilot trial studies both the overall effectiveness of this adapated intervention in rural South Africa, and the differential benefit of selecting participants using three different methods: 1) at random; 2) based on peer nominations of local opinion leaders; 3) based on a community-wide social network built from nominations of important social contacts. While the primary outcome is quantitative, the study is not powered to see statistically significant differences between arms. The evaluation focus of the pilot trial is the process evaluation, which will follow the RE-AIM framework to assess how and why the intervention worked, failed or needed adjustment. The end result will be a CPOL-style intervention package that may (or may not) be appropriate for rural South Africa, and a methodology for adapting CPOL packages for other sexual health contexts.
The process evaluation will include qualitative group and in-depth one-to-one interviews with: (i) session trainers; (ii) POL trainees; (iii) peers in the local community; (iii) HIV service providers. It will also include a short pre/post questionnaire for all trainees to capture key knowledge and attitude outcomes relating to the training.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Invitation to participate in the group training is based on a random selection from all age-eligible individuals in the study area
Behavioral: CPOL group training
Invitation to participate in the group training is based nominations by peers in the study area
Behavioral: CPOL group training
Invitation to participate in the group training is based centrality within a community-wide social network map built from a survey in the study area
Behavioral: CPOL group training
Trained research assistants will deliver four two-hour training sessions to a group of \~20 young adults, leading to the trainees providing sexual health information and HIV self-tests (with onward self-referral to local clinics) to their friends and close contacts. Sessions include training on local sexual health information, effective communication strategies, practice conversations and feedback.
Number of HIV self-tests distributed
The mean number of HIV self-tests distributed to peers by trainees
Time frame: From enrollment to 4 weeks after last training session
Number of peer conversations held
Mean number of conversations trainees report holding with peers
Time frame: Enrollemnt to 4 weeks after last training session
Trainee HIV ART knowledge improvement
Mean change in scores pre/post intervention on a 5-item ART knowledge question set \[range 0-5; higher = better\]
Time frame: Enrollment to end of last session (4 week period)
Trainee HIV PrEP knowledge improvement
Mean change in scores pre/post intervention on a 5-item PrEP knowledge question set \[range 0-5; higher = better\]
Time frame: Enrollment to end of last session (4 week period)
Trainee generalized self-efficacy improvement
Mean change in scores pre/post intervention on the Generalized Self Efficacy-short form (GSE 6) scale \[range 6-24; higher = better\]
Time frame: Enrollment to end of last session (4 week period)
Trainee ART/PrEP self-efficacy improvement
Mean change in scores pre/post intervention on a 4-item self-efficacy-short form scale specific to ART and PrEP use \[range 4-16; higher = better\]
Time frame: Enrollment to end of last session (4 week period)
Trainee ART/PrEP stigma reduction
Mean change in scores pre/post intervention on a 6-item ART/PrEP use stigma question set \[range 6-24; higher = worse\]
Time frame: Enrollment to end of last session (4 week period)
Barriers and Facilitators to Participant Engagement Assessed Through Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Process evaluation of participant engagement using qualitative methods. Data will be collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with trainees and peers. Qualitative thematic analysis will be used to identify barriers and facilitators to engagement, participation, and intervention reach.
Time frame: Enrollment to 4 weeks after last training session
Trainee Confidence in Conducting Peer Conversations Assessed Through Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Process evaluation outcome assessed through semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with trainees. Qualitative thematic analysis will explore participants' confidence in initiating and conducting peer conversations following the training programme.
Time frame: Enrollment to 12 weeks after last training session
Facilitators and Barriers to Peer Conversations Assessed Through Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Process evaluation outcome assessed through semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with trainees. Qualitative thematic analysis will identify perceived facilitators and barriers influencing the conduct of peer conversations.
Time frame: Enrollment to 12 weeks after last training session
Perceptions of the Training Programme Assessed Through Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Process evaluation outcome assessed through semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with trainees and trainers. Qualitative thematic analysis will explore acceptability, perceived value, strengths, and limitations of the training programme.
Time frame: Enrollment to 12 weeks after last training session
Intervention Adaptations Assessed Through Semi-Structured Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Process evaluation outcome assessed through semi-structured in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with trainees and trainers. Qualitative thematic analysis will identify the types of adaptations made during trial implementation and the reasons for these adaptations at both individual and programme levels.
Time frame: Enrollment to 12 weeks after last training session
Plan to share: Yes — Quantitative data from the pre/post questionnaire and any qualitative data that can be meaningfully anonymized.
Supporting information: Study protocol, Informed consent form, Analytic code
Time frame: Data will be available once the primary paper analysing the feasbility trial is complete and accepted for publication. The data will be available in perpetuity.
Access criteria: The PI and AHRI data guardian will be responsible for overseeing requests for data sharing and that the researchers granted access to the data comply with the terms of the data sharing agreement, which will include honouring any commitments about the use of the data that have been made to participants at the time they granted consent. Researchers will be required to acknowledge the source of the data. The terms will also prohibit researchers attempting to identify participants of the study.
Start is estimated for Aug 2026; primary completion for Oct 2026, 2 months later.
Of 172 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Sexually Transmitted Diseases, half reached primary completion within 32 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 17 and three quarters within 47. This study's planned 2 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 182 studies reached it within 31 months; a quarter within 16 and three quarters within 46.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Jul 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases →
Africa Health Research Institute