| Literature DB >> 29370820 |
Esther Karamagi1, Simon Sensalire2, Juliana Nabwire1, John Byabagambi1, Alfred O Awio1, George Aluma1, Mirwais Rahimzai1, Jacqueline Calnan3, Sheila Kyobutungi3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the conventional approaches to HIV prevention being the bedrock for early reductions in HIV infections in Uganda, innovations that demonstrate reduction in risk to infection in vulnerable populations need to be embraced urgently. In the past 2 years, a USAID-funded project tested a quality improvement for behavior change model (QBC) to address barriers to behavioral change among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) at high risk of HIV infection. The model comprised skills building to improve ability of AGYW to stop risky behavior; setting up and empowering community quality improvement (QI) teams to mobilize community resources to support AGYW to stop risky behavior; and service delivery camps to provide HIV prevention services and commodities to AGYW and other community members.Entities:
Keywords: Behavioral change; HIV risk; Model; Quality improvement
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29370820 PMCID: PMC5785880 DOI: 10.1186/s12981-018-0190-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AIDS Res Ther ISSN: 1742-6405 Impact factor: 2.250
Demographic, socio-economic characteristics and sample distribution of AGYW over the study periods
| Sample characteristic | Baseline | Follow up 1 | Follow up 2 | Follow up 3 | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study sample | 409 | 409 | 408 | 394 | na |
| Age categorization | |||||
| 10–14 | 9 (37) | 9 (37) | 6.4 (26) | 1.3 (5) | 0.000 |
| 15–19 | 42.8 (175) | 42.8 (175) | 38.2 (156) | 43.7 (172) | |
| 20–24 | 48.2 (197) | 48.2 (197) | 55.4 (226) | 51.0 (201) | |
| 25 + | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.1 (16) | |
| Marital status | |||||
| Single with no partner | 28.1 (115) | 28.1 (115) | 22.8 (93) | 12.7 (49) | 0.000 |
| Single with a partner | 41.8 (171) | 41.8 (171) | 40 (168) | 42.6 (168) | |
| Married | 22 (90) | 22 (90) | 30.6 (125) | 36.3 (143) | |
| Divorced/separated | 7.8 (32) | 7.8 (32) | 6.4 (26) | 8.6 (34) | |
| Widowed | 0.2 (1) | 0.2 (1) | 0.2 (1) | 0 | |
| Education | |||||
| None | 1.7 (7) | 7 (1.7) | 0 | 0.8 (3) | 0.211 |
| Primary | 62.6 (256) | 62.6 (256) | 65 (256) | 67.5 (266) | |
| O level | 30.6 (125) | 30.6 (125) | 27.9 (114) | 27.4 (108) | |
| A level | 2.2 (9) | 2.2 (9) | 4.4 (18) | 2.8 (11) | |
| Occupation | |||||
| Student | 9.5 (39) | 9.5 (39) | 10.3 (42) | 4.8 (19) | 0.000 |
| Unemployed/looking for work | 22 (90) | 22 (90) | 22.3 (91) | 32.7 (129) | |
| Doing personal business | 26.4 (108) | 26.4 (108) | 28.2 (115) | 30.5 (120) | |
| Agriculture | 26.9 (110) | 26.9 (110) | 27.2 (111) | 23.6 (93) | |
| Employed | 1.5 (6) | 1.5 (6) | 2.9 (12) | 3.8 (15) | |
| Other | 29.9 (54) | 29.9 (54) | 17 (37) | 8.7 (31) | |
na not applicable
Variations in sexual behavior practices over the study period
| High risky sex among AGYW In the past 3 months | Baseline | Follow up 1 | Follow up 2 | Follow up 3 | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Had multiple sexual partners | 16.6 (66) | 11.4 (33) | 5.2 (17) | 3.2 (12) | 0.000 |
| In transactional sex | 13.2 (54) | 7.1 (15) | 3.1 (10) | 3.6 (14) | 0.051 |
| Had protected sex with multiple sexual partners | 23.5 (16) | 60.6 (20) | 69.1 (9) | 75 (9) | 0.042 |
| Had protected sex in transactional sex | 29.6 (16) | 71.4 (20) | 70 (7) | 57.1 (8) | 0.573 |
Parenting and partner support for the AGYW
| Intervention | Follow up 2 | Follow up 3 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent | Number | Percent | Number | |
| Received any form of support from parent | ||||
| Yes | 68.1 | (278) | 72.6 | (286) |
| No | 31.9 | (130) | 27.4 | (108) |
| Received any form of support from partner | ||||
| Yes | 56.1 | (229) | 82.5 | (325) |
| No | 27.2 | (180) | 17.5 | (69) |
Effect of parenting on sexual behavior practices of AGYW by follow up 3
| Sexual behavior | Percentage | Sig | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before parenting intervention | After parenting intervention | ||
| Had multiple sexual partners | |||
| Yes | 61.2 | 58.3 | 0.292 |
| No | 38.8 | 41.7 | |
| Had transactional sex | |||
| Yes | 67.7 | 42.9 | 0.023 |
| No | 32.3 | 57.1 | |
| Used condoms consistently with multiple sexual partners | |||
| Yes | 54.3 | 55.6 | 0.735 |
| No | 45.7 | 44.4 | |
| Used condoms consistently during transactional sex | |||
| Yes | 36.8 | 37.5 | 0.896 |
| No | 63.2 | 62.5 | |
Influence of partner support on sexual behavior practices of AGYW by follow up 3
| Percentage | Sig | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual behavior | Before parenting intervention | After parenting intervention | |
| Had multiple sexual partners | |||
| Yes | 51.2 | 52.9 | 0.461 |
| No | 48.8 | 47.1 | |
| Had transactional sex | |||
| Yes | 53.7 | 20.0 | 0.002 |
| No | 46.3 | 80.0 | |
| Used condoms consistently with multiple sexual partners | |||
| Yes | 16.1 | 22.2 | 0.071 |
| No | 83.9 | 77.8 | |
| Used condoms consistently during transactional sex | |||
| Yes | 25.6 | 28.6 | 0.880 |
| No | 64.4 | 71.4 | |
Fig. 1Number of AGYW exposed to domestic violence
Fig. 2Proportion of AGYW that took action against perpetrators of violence
Fig. 3Marital status of the pregnant AGYW
Fig. 4Desired timing of pregnancy of AGYW