| Literature DB >> 28415973 |
Elia John Mmbaga1, Lusajo Kajula2, Leif Edvard Aarø3,4, Mrema Kilonzo2, Annegreet Gera Wubs3, Sander Matthijs Eggers5, Hein de Vries5, Sylvia Kaaya2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unsafe sexual practices continue to put adolescents at risk for a number of negative health outcomes in Tanzania. While there are some effective theory-based intervention packages with positive impact on important mediators of sexual behaviours, a context specific and tested intervention is urgently needed in Tanzania.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28415973 PMCID: PMC5392916 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4245-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Diagrammatic presentation of participant recruitment, follow up and lost to follow up over time
Cluster adjusted comparison of baseline socio-demographic characteristics of study participants by intervention status
| Variable | Category | Control | Intervention |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 12 | 1679 (64.9) | 1691 (67.6) | |
| 13 | 701 (27.1) | 645 (25.8) | ||
| 14 | 208 (8.0) | 167 (6.7) | 0.4538 | |
| Sex | Male | 1267 (49.7) | 1251 (49.1) | |
| Female | 1282 (50.3) | 1260 (50.9) | 0.7543 | |
| Class | 5 | 583 (33.9) | 902 (36.8) | |
| 6 | 1660 (66.1) | 1547 (63.2) | 0.2494 | |
| Religion | Christian | 1315 (51.2) | 1233 (49.5) | |
| Muslim | 1253 (48.8) | 1259 (50.5) | 0.7198 | |
| Mothers education | No/primary incomplete | 241 (9.7) | 234 (9.6) | |
| Primary | 743 (29.8) | 678 (27.9) | ||
| Secondary | 504 (20.2) | 508 (20.9) | ||
| Above secondary | 423 (17.0) | 442 (18.2) | ||
| Don’t know | 582 (23.3) | 570 (23.4) | 0.8703 | |
| Fathers education | No/primary incomplete | 177 (7.3) | 172 (7.3) | |
| Primary | 501 (20.7) | 466 (19.7) | ||
| Secondary | 522 (21.5) | 484 (20.5) | ||
| Above secondary | 569 (23.5) | 569 (24.1) | ||
| Don’t know | 657 (27.1) | 672 (28.4) | 0.8999 | |
| School performance | Good performance | 2291 (91.1) | 2225 (91.7) | |
| Poor performance | 223 (8.9) | 202 (8.3) | 0.3072 |
Cluster adjusted baseline comparison of mean scores between the intervention and control groups
| Variable | Intervention | Control | Mean difference |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-efficacy | 2.266 | 2.225 | 0.0407 | 0.3074 |
| Peer communication | 1.646 | 1.606 | 0.0394 | 0.3216 |
| Communication with friends | 1.384 | 1.338 | 0.0465 | 0.0984 |
| Communication with parents | 1.338 | 1.305 | 0.0335 | 0.1222 |
| Self-efficacy to delay sex | 2.591 | 2.596 | −0.0046 | 0.8879 |
| Self-efficacy to use condoms | 2.439 | 2.479 | −0.0396 | 0.2356 |
| Social norms condom use | 3.352 | 3.407 | −0.0549 | 0.2994 |
| Social norm delayed sex | 3.516 | 3.487 | 0.0297 | 0.5492 |
| Attitude delayed sex (negative) | 2.321 | 2.297 | 0.0239 | 0.5017 |
| Attitude delayed sex (positive) | 3.433 | 3.433 | 0.0002 | 0.9844 |
| Action plan condom use | 2.598 | 2.578 | 0.0198 | 0.4743 |
| Action plan delayed sex | 2.809 | 2.793 | 0.1529 | 0.6163 |
| Puberty knowledge | 1.504 | 1.503 | 0.0005 | 0.9862 |
| Myths about condoms | 2.231 | 2.244 | −0.0127 | 0.7087 |
| Haves | 3.771 | 3.992 | −0.2208 | 0.3687 |
Change in the incidence of sexual initiation following the PREPARE intervention among adolescents aged 12–14 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
| Follow up time | Intervention | Control | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Males | ||||||
| N | n | I | N | n | I | |
| 6 months | 1158 | 65 | 11.5 | 1213 | 78 | 13.2 |
| 12 months | 1158 | 87 | 7.3 | 1213 | 126 | 10.9 |
|
| ||||||
| Females | ||||||
| 6 months | 1052 | 60 | 11.7 | 1113 | 52 | 9.6 |
| 12 months | 1052 | 75 | 7.4 | 1113 | 114 | 10.7 |
|
| ||||||
Cluster adjusted effects of the PREPARE Intervention on action planning and actual sexual behaviours among adolescents aged 12–14 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
| INTERVENTION | CONTROL | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Occasion | Coefficient |
| Coefficient |
|
| Males | |||||
| Action plan to delay sex | Baseline | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Month 6 | 0.0729 | 0.3713 | 0.1049 | <0.001 | |
| Month 12 | 0.1497 | <0.001 | 0.1562 | <0.001 | |
|
|
|
| |||
| Action plan to use condom | Baseline | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Month 6 | 0.1629 | 0.0325 | 0.2956 | 0.014 | |
| Month 12 | 0.1880 | 0.0191 | 0.2772 | 0.043 | |
|
|
|
| |||
| Sexual initiation | Month 6 | 0.1249 | 1 | 0.0272 | 1 |
| Month 12 | 0.0656 | 0.007 | 0.0192 | 0.684 | |
|
|
|
| |||
| Condom use | Baseline | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Month 6 | 0.3209 | <0.001 | 0.1484 | 0.025 | |
| Month 12 | 0.3694 | <0.001 | 0.2672 | <0.001 | |
|
|
|
| |||
| Females | |||||
| Action plan to delay sex | Baseline | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Month 6 | 0.1469 | 0.025 | −0.1830 | 0.046 | |
| Month 12 | 0.1055 | 0.033 | 0.1539 | 0.067 | |
|
|
|
| |||
| Action plan to use condom | Baseline | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Month 6 | 0.1724 | <0.001 | 0.1916 | <0.001 | |
| Month 12 | 0.1537 | 0.0412 | 0.0857 | 0.176 | |
|
|
|
| |||
| Sexual initiation | Month 6 | 0.148 | ref | 0.0694 | ref |
| Month 12 | 0.0746 | <0.001 | 0.1318 | <0.001 | |
|
|
|
| |||
| Condom use | Baseline | ref | ref | ref | ref |
| Month 6 | 0.1727 | <0.001 | 0.2660 | <0.001 | |
| Month 12 | 0.2910 | <0.001 | 0.3070 | 0.001 | |
|
|
|
| |||
Fig. 2Change overtime in adjusted mean scale for action planning to delay sex among Female adolescents
Fig. 3Change overtime in adjusted mean scale for action planning to delay sex among Male adolescents
Fig. 4Change in adjusted mean scale overtime for action planning to use condom among Male adolescents
Fig. 5Change in adjusted mean scale overtime for action planning to use condom among Female adolescents