Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Oral Session 3 – Intervention studies

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

O3.1 EVALUATION OF HIV PEER EDUCATION IN A SOUTH AFRICAN WORKPLACE

J. Myers, N. Sloan.School of Public Health and Family Medicine, University of Cape Town, South Africa

Introduction: In 1997, a South African national retail group operating two companies initiated an HIV/AIDS peer education programme for its employees, aimed at addressing the growing epidemic. This, along with a number of similar initiatives in industry, had never been evaluated.

Methods: A cross sectional study of employees was conducted in 2001 to determine (a) the level of HIV/AIDS knowledge; (b) attitudes towards people living with HIV/AIDS; (c) perceived self risk of acquiring HIV infection; and (d) use of condoms (provided free). Questionnaires were completed in the vernacular during in store training sessions in three geographical regions (Gauteng, Western Cape, and Eastern Cape/KwaZulu-Natal) in 2001.

Results: In store training sessions given by peer educators to their colleagues had no significant impact on any of the four main study outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression showed that very little of the variance in any of the four main outcomes was explained by potential determinants of interest. Regarding HIV knowledge, 8% of variance was explained by geographical area, level of education, whether or not participants were managers, and if they were peer educators. Of the total number of subjects, 59% had a good knowledge score (mean 13.6, maximum 17). Regarding variance in attitude towards people with HIV/AIDS, 6% was explained by company, geographical area, level of education, whether or not participants were managers, and if they were peer educators; 62% had a positive attitude towards people with HIV/AIDS. Regarding risk, 7% of variance was explained by age, sex, company, geographical area, and relationship status. The majority of participants thought they were at low risk of acquiring HIV (mean 2.5, maximum 10). For condom use, 17% of variance was explained by age, sex, company, geographical area, relationship/marital status, …

View Full Text