| Literature DB >> 20012479 |
Megan J Huchko1, Michele Montandon, Rosemary Nguti, Elizabeth A Bukusi, Craig R Cohen.
Abstract
HIV testing has been promoted as a key HIV prevention strategy in low-resource settings, despite studies showing variable impact on risk behavior. We sought to examine rates of HIV testing and the association between testing and sexual risk behaviors in Kisumu, Kenya. Participants were interviewed about HIV testing and sexual risk behaviors. They then underwent HIV serologic testing. We found that 47% of women and 36% of men reported prior testing. Two-thirds of participants who tested HIV-positive in this study reported no prior HIV test. Women who had undergone recent testing were less likely to report high-risk behaviors than women who had never been tested; this was not seen among men. Although rates of HIV testing were higher than seen in previous studies, the majority of HIV-infected people were unaware of their status. Efforts should be made to increase HIV testing among this population.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 20012479 PMCID: PMC2997911 DOI: 10.1007/s10461-009-9649-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AIDS Behav ISSN: 1090-7165
Sociodemographic factors associated with HIV seroprevalence in Kisumu
| Variable | Men | Women | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIV+ | OR (95% CI) | HIV+ | OR (95% CI) | |
| Age | ||||
| 15–19 | 7/179 (4%) | 1.0 | 19/191 (10%) | 1.0 |
| 20–24 | 24/172 (13%) |
| 54/271 (20%) |
|
| 25–29 | 29/130 (22%) |
| 40/135 (30%) |
|
| 30–39 | 24/118 (20%) |
| 63/154 (41%) |
|
| 40–49 | 25/46 (35%) |
| 28/76 (37%) |
|
| Marital status | ||||
| Married | 61/207 (30%) | 1.0 | 79/354 (22%) | 1.0 |
| Single | 18/249 (7%) |
| 21/148 (14%) | 1.0 (0.5–2.0) |
| Separated/divorced | 5/21 (24%) | 0.7 (0.2–2.1) | 15/38 (39%) |
|
| Widowed | 1/3 (33%) | 0.8 (0.1–7.7) | 27/41 (66%) |
|
| Education level | ||||
| Up to primary | 43/185 (23%) | 2.1 (0.8–5.3) | 85/305 (28%) |
|
| Secondary | 33/222 (15%) | 1.6 (0.6–4.1) | 46/212 (22%) |
|
| College/university | 7/63 (10%) | 1.0 | 4/47 (4%) | 1.0 |
| Currently employed | ||||
| No | 25/223 (11%) | 1.0 | 85/305 (24%) | 1.0 |
| Yes | 60/257 (23%) | 1.5 (0.9–2.6) | 57/224 (25%) |
|
| Location | ||||
| Urban | 208/588(35%) | 1.0 | 70/302 (23%) | 1.0 |
| Rural | 48/156 (31%) | 1.6 (0.9–2.8) | 72/279 (42%) | 1.1 (0.7–1.6) |
| Years lived in Kisumu | ||||
| <1 | 8/48 (17%) | 1.0 | 8/66 (12%) | 1.0 |
| 1–5 | 15/117 (13%) | 0.6 (0.2–1.8) | 28/153 (18%) | 1.5 (0.6–3.4) |
| >5 | 62/314 (20%) | 0.9 (0.4–2.0) | 106/362 (29%) | 1.9 (0.9–4.2) |
| Ethnic group/tribe | ||||
| Luo | 70/384 (18%) | 1.4 (0.7–2.8) | 119/450 (26%) |
|
| Other tribe | 15/96 (16%) | 1.0 | 23/131 (18%) | 1.0 |
| Religion | ||||
| Christian | 82/452 (18%) | 1.6 (0.3–8.0) | 135/458 (43%) | 0.8 (0.3–2.2) |
| Other | 3/28 (11%) | 1.0 | 7/23 (34%) | 1.0 |
| Alcohol use | ||||
| No | 32/267 (12%) | 1.0 | 115/510 (22%) | 1.0 |
| Yes | 53/213 (25%) |
| 27/71 (23%) |
|
| Drug use | ||||
| No | 31/236 (12%) | 1.0 | 122/397 (23%) | 1.0 |
| Yes | 54/213 (25%) |
| 20/62 (32%) | 1.5 (1.8–2.8) |
| Electricity in the home | ||||
| No | 66/327 (20%) | 1.0 | 113/399 (28%) | 1.0 |
| Yes | 19/153 (12%) |
| 29/184 (13%) | 1.3 (0.98–1.8) |
Statistically significant values are shown in bold
Demographics associated with prior HIV testing
| Variable | Men | Women | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |||
| Age | ||||
| 15–19 | 50/146 (34%) | 1.0 | 72/371 (19%) | 1.0 |
| 20–24 | 87/209 (42%) |
| 142/287 (49%) |
|
| 25–29 | 64/139 (46%) |
| 73/146 (50%) |
|
| 30–39 | 32/127 (25%) | 1.0 (0.6–1.6) | 62/164 (38%) | 1.1 (0.7–1.7) |
| 40–49 | 23/256 (9%) | 1.4 (0.8–0.5) | 22/130 (17%) | 0.7 (0.4–1.3) |
| Marital status | ||||
| Ever married | 109/339 (32%) | 0.8 (0.6–1.1) | 285/625 (47%) | 1.6 (1.2–2.2) |
| Currently married | 98/296 (33%) | 0.9 (0.7–0.2) | 237/502 (47%) |
|
| Separated/divorced | 8/34 (24%) | 0.6 (0.3–1.3) | 20/61 (33%) | 0.6 (0.4–1.1) |
| Widowed | 1/5 (20%) | 0.5 (0.1–4.2) | 26/62 (42%) | 1.0 (0.6–1.7) |
| Single | 149/406 (37%) | 1.2 (0.9–1.7) | 88/249 (35%) | 0.7 (0.5–0.9) |
| Education level | ||||
| Up to primary | 92/350 (26%) | 1.0 | 197/501 (39%) | 1.0 |
| Secondary | 115/308 (37%) |
| 139/281 (49%) |
|
| College/university | 49/79 (62%) |
| 35/52 (67%) |
|
| Currently employed | ||||
| No | 120/375 (32%) | 1.0 | 226/571 (40%) | 1.0 |
| Yes | 136/367 (37%) | 1.3 (0.9–1.9) | 145/306 (47%) | 1.2 (0.9–1.6) |
| Ethnic group/tribe | ||||
| Luo | 208/588 (35%) | 1.3 (0.8–1.9) | 280/665 (42%) | 1.1 (0.8–1.5) |
| Other | 48/156 (31%) | 1.0 | 91/215 (42%) | 1.0 |
| Religion | ||||
| Christian | 246/701 (35%) | 1.6 (0.7–3.4) | 356/828 (43%) | 1.3 (0.6–2.5) |
| Other | 10/43 (23%) | 1.0 | 15/44 (34%) | 1.0 |
| Electricity in the home | ||||
| Yes | 91/203 (45%) |
| 116/353 (46%) | 1.3 (0.98–1.8) |
| No | 165/537 (31%) | 1.0 | 255/620 (41%) | 1.0 |
Statistically significant values are shown in bold
HIV risk behaviors in participants who had undergone HIV testing in past 1–2 years, unadjusted and adjusted relative risk
| Risk behavior | Men | Women | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR (95% CI) | ARRa (95% CI) | RR (95% CI) | ARRa (95% CI) | |
| Sex with non-spousal partner in the past year |
| 1.5 (1.0–2.1) | 1.1 (0.8–1.6) | 1.1 (0.7–1.7) |
| Sex with non-spousal partner without condoms | 1.0 (0.6–1.6) | 1.1 (0.7–1.7) | 1.5 (1.0–2.3) | 1.4 (0.9–2.3) |
| Anal sex | ||||
| Ever | 0.4 (0.1–1.8) | 0.4 (0.1–2.1) | 1.6 (0.5–5.0) | 1.4 (0.4–4.9) |
| Past 12 months | 0.6 (0.1–1.3) | 0.6 (0.1–3.1) |
|
|
| Given or received gifts or money for sex | ||||
| Ever | 1.0 (0.7–1.5) | 1.2 (0.8–2.3) | 0.7 (0.5–1.0) | 0.7 (0.5–1.1) |
| Past 12 months |
|
| 1.3 (0.8–2.1) | 1.4 (0.8–2.3) |
| Reports any risk behaviorb | ||||
| Ever | 1.1 (0.8–1.6) | 1.2 (0.8–1.7) | 1.1 (0.8–1.4) | 1.1 (0.8–1.4) |
| Past 12 months | 1.2 (0.8–1.7) | 1.3 (0.9–1.9) | 0.4 (0.2–1.2) |
|
aRelative risk adjusted for age and educational level, with 95% confidence interval (CI)
bOne or more of the following: sex for money, unprotected non-spousal sex or anal sex
Statistically significant values are shown in bold