Tracy McClinton Appollis1,2, Zoe Duby3,4, Kim Jonas3,5, Janan Dietrich3,6, Kealeboga Maruping3, Fareed Abdullah7,8, Nevilene Slingers7, Catherine Mathews3,5. 1. Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, PO Box 19070, Cape Town, 7505, South Africa. tmappollis@mrc.ac.za. 2. Adolescent Health Research Unit, Division of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, 46 Sawkins Road, Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa. tmappollis@mrc.ac.za. 3. Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, PO Box 19070, Cape Town, 7505, South Africa. 4. Division of Social and Behavioural Sciences in the School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 5. Adolescent Health Research Unit, Division of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, 46 Sawkins Road, Rondebosch, Cape Town, 7700, South Africa. 6. Perinatal HIV Research Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 7. Office of AIDS and TB Research, South African Medical Research Council, Tygerberg, PO Box 19070, Cape Town, 7505, South Africa. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For interventions to reach those they are intended for, an understanding of the factors that influence their participation, as well as the facilitators and barriers of participation are needed. This study explores factors associated with participation in a combination HIV prevention intervention targeting adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) aged 15-24-years-old, as well as the perspectives of AGYW, intervention implementers, and facilitators who participated in this intervention. METHODS: This study used mixed-methods approach with quantitative household survey data from 4399 AGYW aged 15-24-years-old in six of the ten districts in which the intervention was implemented. In addition, qualitative methods included a total of 100 semi-structured in-depth interviews and 21 focus group discussions in five of the ten intervention districts with 185 AGYW who participated in one or more of the key components of the intervention, and 13 intervention implementers and 13 facilitators. Thematic analysis was used to explore the perspectives of participating and implementing the intervention. RESULTS: Findings reveal that almost half of AGYW (48.4%) living in the districts where the intervention took place, participated in at least one of the components of the intervention. For both 15-19-year-olds and 20-24-year-olds, factors associated with increased participation in the intervention included being HIV negative, in school, never been pregnant, and having had a boyfriend. Experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) and/or sexual violence in the past 12 months was associated with increased levels of participation in the intervention for 20-24-year-olds only. In our analysis of the qualitative data, facilitators to participation included motivating participants to join the interventions through explaining the benefits of the programme. Barriers included misguided expectations about financial rewards or job opportunities; competing responsibilities, interests or activities; family responsibilities including childcare; inappropriate incentives; inability to disrupt the school curriculum and difficulties with conducting interventions after school hours due to safety concerns; miscommunication about meetings; as well as struggles to reach out-of-school AGYW. CONCLUSION: Designers of combination HIV prevention interventions need to address the barriers to participation so that AGYW can attend without risking their safety and compromising their family, childcare and schooling responsibilities. Strategies to create demand need to include clear communication about the nature and potential benefits of such interventions, and the inclusion of valued incentives.
BACKGROUND: For interventions to reach those they are intended for, an understanding of the factors that influence their participation, as well as the facilitators and barriers of participation are needed. This study explores factors associated with participation in a combination HIV prevention intervention targeting adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) aged 15-24-years-old, as well as the perspectives of AGYW, intervention implementers, and facilitators who participated in this intervention. METHODS: This study used mixed-methods approach with quantitative household survey data from 4399 AGYW aged 15-24-years-old in six of the ten districts in which the intervention was implemented. In addition, qualitative methods included a total of 100 semi-structured in-depth interviews and 21 focus group discussions in five of the ten intervention districts with 185 AGYW who participated in one or more of the key components of the intervention, and 13 intervention implementers and 13 facilitators. Thematic analysis was used to explore the perspectives of participating and implementing the intervention. RESULTS: Findings reveal that almost half of AGYW (48.4%) living in the districts where the intervention took place, participated in at least one of the components of the intervention. For both 15-19-year-olds and 20-24-year-olds, factors associated with increased participation in the intervention included being HIV negative, in school, never been pregnant, and having had a boyfriend. Experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) and/or sexual violence in the past 12 months was associated with increased levels of participation in the intervention for 20-24-year-olds only. In our analysis of the qualitative data, facilitators to participation included motivating participants to join the interventions through explaining the benefits of the programme. Barriers included misguided expectations about financial rewards or job opportunities; competing responsibilities, interests or activities; family responsibilities including childcare; inappropriate incentives; inability to disrupt the school curriculum and difficulties with conducting interventions after school hours due to safety concerns; miscommunication about meetings; as well as struggles to reach out-of-school AGYW. CONCLUSION: Designers of combination HIV prevention interventions need to address the barriers to participation so that AGYW can attend without risking their safety and compromising their family, childcare and schooling responsibilities. Strategies to create demand need to include clear communication about the nature and potential benefits of such interventions, and the inclusion of valued incentives.
Entities:
Keywords:
Girls; HIV; Intervention; Participation; Recruitment; Retention; South Africa; Women
Authors: Larry W Chang; David Serwadda; Thomas C Quinn; Maria J Wawer; Ronald H Gray; Steven J Reynolds Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Catherine Mathews; Sander Matthijs Eggers; Petrus J de Vries; Amanda J Mason-Jones; Loraine Townsend; Leif Edvard Aarø; Hein De Vries Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-07-04 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Mei-Wei Chang; Susan Nitzke; Roger Brown; M Jean Brancheau Egan; Christopher M Bendekgey; Diana Buist Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2016-11-24
Authors: Shamagonam James; Pedro T Pisa; John Imrie; Moira P Beery; Catherine Martin; Catherine Skosana; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Victor Omollo; Stephanie D Roche; Felix Mogaka; Josephine Odoyo; Gena Barnabee; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Ariana W K Katz; Jennifer Morton; Rachel Johnson; Jared M Baeten; Connie Celum; Gabrielle O'Malley Journal: Sex Reprod Health Matters Date: 2022-12