Lucie D Cluver1, F Mark Orkin, Alexa R Yakubovich, Lorraine Sherr. 1. *Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; †Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; ‡School of Clinical Medicine and DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Human Development, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa; and §Health Psychology Unit, Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social protection (ie, cash transfers, free schools, parental support) has potential for adolescent HIV prevention. We aimed to identify which social protection interventions are most effective and whether combined social protection has greater effects in South Africa. METHODS: In this prospective longitudinal study, we interviewed 3516 adolescents aged 10-18 between 2009 and 2012. We sampled all homes with a resident adolescent in randomly selected census areas in 4 urban and rural sites in 2 South African provinces. We measured household receipt of 14 social protection interventions and incidence of HIV-risk behaviors. Using gender-disaggregated multivariate logistic regression and marginal effects analyses, we assessed respective contributions of interventions and potential combination effects. RESULTS: Child-focused grants, free schooling, school feeding, teacher support, and parental monitoring were independently associated with reduced HIV-risk behavior incidence (odds ratio: 0.10-0.69). Strong effects of combination social protection were shown, with cumulative reductions in HIV-risk behaviors. For example, girls' predicted past-year incidence of economically driven sex dropped from 11% with no interventions to 2% among those with a child grant, free school, and good parental monitoring. Similarly, girls' incidence of unprotected/casual sex or multiple partners dropped from 15% with no interventions to 10% with either parental monitoring or school feeding, and to 7% with both interventions. CONCLUSION: In real world, high-epidemic conditions, "combination social protection," shows strong HIV prevention effects for adolescents and may maximize prevention efforts.
BACKGROUND: Social protection (ie, cash transfers, free schools, parental support) has potential for adolescent HIV prevention. We aimed to identify which social protection interventions are most effective and whether combined social protection has greater effects in South Africa. METHODS: In this prospective longitudinal study, we interviewed 3516 adolescents aged 10-18 between 2009 and 2012. We sampled all homes with a resident adolescent in randomly selected census areas in 4 urban and rural sites in 2 South African provinces. We measured household receipt of 14 social protection interventions and incidence of HIV-risk behaviors. Using gender-disaggregated multivariate logistic regression and marginal effects analyses, we assessed respective contributions of interventions and potential combination effects. RESULTS: Child-focused grants, free schooling, school feeding, teacher support, and parental monitoring were independently associated with reduced HIV-risk behavior incidence (odds ratio: 0.10-0.69). Strong effects of combination social protection were shown, with cumulative reductions in HIV-risk behaviors. For example, girls' predicted past-year incidence of economically driven sex dropped from 11% with no interventions to 2% among those with a child grant, free school, and good parental monitoring. Similarly, girls' incidence of unprotected/casual sex or multiple partners dropped from 15% with no interventions to 10% with either parental monitoring or school feeding, and to 7% with both interventions. CONCLUSION: In real world, high-epidemic conditions, "combination social protection," shows strong HIV prevention effects for adolescents and may maximize prevention efforts.
Authors: Charlotte H Watts; Anna M Foss; Mazeda Hossain; Cathy Zimmerman; Rachel von Simson; Jennifer Klot Journal: Sex Transm Infect Date: 2010-10-23 Impact factor: 3.519
Authors: Audrey E Pettifor; Helen V Rees; Immo Kleinschmidt; Annie E Steffenson; Catherine MacPhail; Lindiwe Hlongwa-Madikizela; Kerry Vermaak; Nancy S Padian Journal: AIDS Date: 2005-09-23 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Elona Toska; Lesley Gittings; Rebecca Hodes; Lucie D Cluver; Kaymarlin Govender; K Emma Chademana; Vincent Evans Gutiérrez Journal: Afr J AIDS Res Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.300
Authors: Laura Gauer Bermudez; Ozge Sensoy Bahar; Mavis Dako-Gyeke; Alice Boateng; Abdallah Ibrahim; Fred M Ssewamala; Mary McKay Journal: Int Soc Work Date: 2018-07-30
Authors: Joan T Price; Nora E Rosenberg; Dhrutika Vansia; Twambilile Phanga; Nivedita L Bhushan; Bertha Maseko; Savvy K Brar; Mina C Hosseinipour; Jennifer H Tang; Linda-Gail Bekker; Audrey Pettifor Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Marie C D Stoner; Jessie K Edwards; Daniel Westreich; Kelly Kilburn; Jennifer Ahern; Sheri A Lippman; F Xavier Gómez-Olivé; Kathleen Kahn; Audrey Pettifor Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2021-01-21
Authors: Proscovia Nabunya; William Byansi; Joelynn Muwanga; Christopher Damulira; Rachel Brathwaite; Flavia Namuwonge; Ozge Sensoy Bahar; Fred M Ssewamala Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2020-11-10