Promoting HIV prevention: a problem identification approach to interventions in post-HIV test counselling

Low impact of a community-wide HIV testing and counseling program on sexual behavior in rural Uganda

Study results on the assessment of a community-wide HIV counseling and testing program are presented. The aim of this study was to elucidate whether HIV counseling and testing was effective in reducing high risk sexual behavior of a rural population in Uganda. From a total of 2,267 persons of Kigoyera Parish, western Uganda, who were HIV tested and counseled, 495 persons were selected and interviewed about their sexual behavior. Persons who were HIV tested showed no difference in sexual behavior compared to those who were not tested (condom use 4.3% vs. 5.5%, mean number of sexual partner in the past three months 1.8 vs. 2.0). The conclusion is that only knowing the HIV serostatus is not enough to reduce high risk behavior. The study results also showed that there is a demand for HIV counseling services without being HIV tested.

Repeat HIV testing: high-risk behaviour or risk reduction strategy?

OBJECTIVE

To examine the characteristics of repeat and first-time HIV testers and consider their implications for HIV test counselling.

METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire was completed by nearly 1500 people seeking an HIV test between September 1997 and July 1998 at a same-day HIV testing clinic in London, United Kingdom. Repeat testers were those people who had previously tested HIV negative and were returning for another test. Information was collected on self-reported unprotected penetrative sex (UPS) in the previous 3 months and reasons for seeking the present test.

RESULTS

Overall, 50.6% (721/1446) of all clinic attenders were repeat testers: gay men 71.7% (337/470), heterosexual men 42.1% (208/494) and heterosexual women 38.6% (186/482). No significant differences were found between repeat and first time testers in the frequency of UPS (P > or = 0.06). However, gay men (but not heterosexual men and women) reporting three or more previous HIV tests were significantly more likely to report higher-risk UPS (i.e. with a partner whose HIV status was either positive or unknown) (42.2%) than those who had had one-two or no previous tests (25.3 and 25.4%, respectively; P = 0.002). Over half the heterosexual men and women, and one third of gay men said they were seeking the current HIV test in preparation for a new relationship; these proportions did not differ significantly between repeat and first-time testers (P > 0.1).

CONCLUSION

In this London HIV testing clinic, no significant differences were found in the frequency of UPS between repeat and first-time testers with the exception of gay men with a history of three or more previous HIV tests, who reported elevated levels of high-risk sexual behaviour. For many people, repeat HIV testing has become part of a risk reduction strategy to establish seroconcordance with a regular partner. HIV test counselling provides the opportunity both to address high-risk behaviour and to reinforce personal risk-reduction strategies.

Targeted prevention for people with HIV/AIDS: feasible and desirable?

People with HIV/AIDS are rarely chosen as a target group for prevention activities. In this paper we look at empirical and theoretical evidence for the feasibility and desirability of directing preventive interventions at HIV-positives. Research data on the behaviour and motivation of HIV-positives suggests that the differences between HIV-positives and HIV-negatives and those who are unaware of their HIV-status are not large. However, specific determinants of behaviour, such as responsibility for others or the risk of superinfection, have seldom been measured. Effective interventions targeting at HIV-positives and focussing on prevention are lacking. Fear of increased stigmatization has been used as an argument against focussing prevention activities at HIV-positives. Theoretically that argument is probably not correct: positive coping with HIV may invite positive reactions. The conclusion is that HIV-positives should be chosen as a special target group for additional planned preventive interventions. Because people need to be aware of their HIV status, testing and treatment sites are adequate settings. Effective interventions should be developed on the basis of theory and evidence about the specific determinants of risk behaviour of HIV-positives: protecting oneself for superinfection and protecting one's partner.