| Literature DB >> 22401660 |
Huy V Nguyen1, Giang M Le, Son M Nguyen, Mai N Tran, Nguyet M Ha.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Vietnam, socially marginalized groups such as ethnic minorities in mountainous areas are often difficult to engage in HIV research and prevention programs. This intervention study aimed to estimate the effect of participatory community communication (PCC) on changing HIV preventive ideation and behavior among ethnic minority youth in a rural district from central Vietnam.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22401660 PMCID: PMC3310823 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-170
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Figure 1A model of behavioral change communication [,].
Figure 2HIV prevention knowledge and ideation by level of recall of HIV prevention messages (.
Unadjusted differences in HIV preventive knowledge, ideation and behavior between exposed and non-exposed youths
| Variables | Exposed group (recall) n (%) | Non exposed group (not recall) n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIV preventive knowledge | 157(88.70) | 342(54.90) | *** |
| HIV preventive ideation | 169(95.48) | 373(59.87) | |
| Safer sexual behavior (condom use) | 70(39.55) | 229(36.76) | NS |
*P < .05; **P < .01: ***P < .001; NS = Not significant
Regression modeling for factors affecting HIV preventive behavior
| Variables | Mean (Range) | % | Recall of intervention messages | HIV preventive ideation | Safer sexual behavior |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (higher vs lower) | 24.17 | 0.96* | 0.97* | 1.04* | |
| Gender (male vs female) | 52.63 | _ | _ | 1.79*** | |
| Ethnic (Vankieu vs Pahco) | 57.62 | 0.48** | 0.57** | _ | |
| Marital status (married vs unmarried) | 55.25 | _ | _ | 6.75*** | |
| SES (higher vs lower) | 5.45 | 0.95 | 1.20*** | _ | |
| Migration (yes vs no) | 49.88 | 0.65 | _ | _ | |
| Social network (higher vs lower) | 2.00 | 1.51*** | 1.21** | _ | |
| Access to HIV information (higher vs lower) | 24.00 | 1.37*** | 1.15*** | 1.05** | |
| Exposure to intervention (recall vs non recall) | 22.13 | 3.24** | 0.67 | ||
| HIV preventive ideation (higher vs lower) | 67.75 | 2.38*** | |||
| Sample | 800 | 800 | 800 | 800 | 800 |
| Exclusion test (model fitness): χ2( | 1.95 | 0.04 | |||
| Test for endogeneity: rho (CI) | 0.49 | -0.04 |
(-) = variables excluded from the model in order to increase the level of statistical significance of the parameters and model fit
1Likelihood test applied for binominal variables
*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001; NS = not significant
The net differences in the percentage of HIV preventive ideation and behavior (condom use) between the two groups adjusted by PSM
| Outcome variables | Number of blocks balance# | Non exposed group (A) N | Exposed group (B) N | Total | Net difference = B-A using "Atts" command % | Converting percentages into numbers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HIV preventive knowledge | 6 | 623 | 117 | 800 | 7.4%** | 210 |
| HIV preventive ideation | 6 | 623 | 117 | 800 | 12.7%** | 361 |
| Safer sex (condom use) | 6 | 623 | 117 | 800 | 5.0%* | 142 |
# indicating the number of balanced blocks in terms of characteristics or statistically insignificant difference in characteristics between non exposed group and exposed group, meaning that the propensity score was balanced when stratified into 6 blocks, which allow for calculating the net impact of the intervention as compared between the two groups. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001
Figure 3Comparison of the unadjusted increase in HIV preventive knowledge, ideation and condom use to the increase adjusted by PSM (N = 800).