| Literature DB >> 20420701 |
Andrea Wilcken1, Flavia Miiro-Nakayima, Ramadhan N B Hizaamu, Thomas Keil, Dorothy Balaba-Byansi.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical male circumcision is now part of a comprehensive approach to HIV prevention. It has been shown that awareness of the protective effect of male circumcision leads to high acceptability towards the introduction of medical male circumcision services within countries. The objective of this survey was to identify factors determining awareness of male circumcision for HIV prevention.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20420701 PMCID: PMC2880292 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-209
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Basic characteristics of the study participants (N = 452)
| Youth | Adults | p-Value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 108 | 58.4 | 139 | 52.1 | p = 0.185 | |
| 185 | 18.4 +/- 2.5; 18.0 | 267 | 39.8 +/- 11.0; 38.0 | p < 0.001 | |
| p < 0.001 | |||||
| - | 34 | 20.7 | 24 | 87.1 | |
| - | 6 | 3.7 | 229 | 9.1 | |
| - | 124 | 75.6 | 10 | 3.8 | |
| p = 0.020 | |||||
| - | 36 | 19.5 | 31 | 11.7 | |
| - | 89 | 48.1 | 144 | 54.3 | |
| - | 57 | 30.8 | 90 | 34.0 | |
| - | 3 | 1.6 | 0 | 0.0 | |
| p = 0.060 | |||||
| - | 57 | 31.0 | 94 | 36.0 | |
| - | 72 | 39.1 | 111 | 42.5 | |
| - | 13 | 7.1 | 6 | 2.3 | |
| - | 10 | 5.4 | 7 | 2.7 | |
| - | 32 | 17.4 | 43 | 16.5 | |
| p < 0.001 | |||||
| - | 1 | 0.6 | 16 | 6.0 | |
| - | 76 | 42.9 | 103 | 38.9 | |
| - | 95 | 53.7 | 96 | 36.2 | |
| - | 3 | 1.7 | 30 | 11.3 | |
| - | 2 | 1.1 | 20 | 7.5 | |
| p < 0.001 | |||||
| - | 33 | 21.3 | 136 | 52.9 | |
| - | 19 | 12.3 | 83 | 32.3 | |
| - | 7 | 4.5 | 6 | 2.3 | |
| - | 69 | 61.9 | 32 | 12.5 | |
Figure 1Self-reported male circumcision rates and ages at male circumcision per district. Kaliro: males circumcised: 18.4%; median age at male circumcision (IQR): 15 yrs (5.25-21.25 yrs). Kayunga: males circumcised: 33.3%, median age at male circumcision (IQR): 16 yrs (5-19 yrs). Mpigi: males circumcised: 48.3%, median age at male circumcision (IQR): 4 yrs (0-8 yrs)
The likelihood for awareness of male circumcision for HIV prevention for adults (N = 219) in univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses*; statistically significant results bold
| Crude OR | 95% CI | p-value | Adjusted OR | 95% CI | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.44 | 0.70-2.98 | 0.320 | 2.78 | 0.91-8.52 | 0.073 | |
| 0.98 | 0.95-1.01 | 0.207 | ||||
| - | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - |
| - | 1.18 | 0.51-2.70 | 0.704 | 1.24 | 0.37-4.20 | 0.730 |
| - | 1.08 | 0.43-2.71 | 0.874 | 0.33 | 0.03-3.63 | 0.362 |
| - | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - |
| - | ||||||
| - | ||||||
| - | 9.91 | 0.76-129.18 | 0.080 | |||
| - | 8.03 | 0.59-109.95 | 0.119 | |||
| - | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - |
| - | 0.85 | 0.27-2.67 | 0.776 | 0.33 | 0.05-2.03 | 0.229 |
| - | 1.32 | 0.38-4.62 | 0.668 | 0.62 | 0.09-4.44 | 0.633 |
| - | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - |
| - | 1.44 | 0.66-3.14 | 0.355 | 1.13 | 0.21-6.19 | 0.887 |
| - | not estimable | not estimable | ||||
| - | 1.26 | 0.14-11.23 | 0.834 | 1.86 | 0.08-43.66 | 0.700 |
| - | 4.32 | 0.95-19.70 | 0.059 | 3.47 | 0.47-25.64 | 0.222 |
| - | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - |
| - | 0.63 | 0.26-1.53 | 0.306 | 0.83 | 0.10-7.03 | 0.866 |
| - | 0.79 | 0.31-2.01 | 0.616 | 1.59 | 0.33-7.62 | 0.566 |
| - | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - |
| - | 2.14 | 0.68-6.73 | 0.196 | 2.34 | 0.30-18.57 | 0.421 |
| - | 1.47 | 0.53-4.08 | 0.454 | 1.47 | 0.40-5.39 | 0.560 |
| - | not estimable (N = 6) | not estimable | ||||
| 1.00 | 1.00-1.00 | 0.724 | 1.00 | 1.00-1.00 | 0.929 | |
| - | 1 | - | - | 1 | - | - |
| - | 1.77 | 0.36-8.75 | 0.485 | 5.28 | 0.55-50.80 | 0.150 |
| - | 1.19 | 0.18-7.84 | 0.858 | 6.42 | 0.38-108.05 | 0.197 |
| 1.19 | 0.38-3.78 | 0.766 | - | - | - | |
| 1.24 | 0.89-1.73 | 0.197 | - | - | - | |
* Variables included in the adjusted model were sex, age (as a continuous variable), adult subgroup, educational level, religion, tribe, district, employment status, salary, marital status
Figure 2Participants' estimates of main reasons for male circumcision (N = 428, multiple answers were possible).