Marseille 2007
| Abstract #644 - Young rural South Africans experiences of participating in HIV prevention research | ||||
|
Session: 6.45: Posters A (Poster) on Monday in Chaired by Authors: Presenting Author: Prof Rachel Jewkes - Medical Research Council, South Africa |
||||
| Additional Authors: Ms Mzikazi Nduna, Mr Jonathan Levin, Ms Nwabisa Jama, Dr Kristin Dunkle, Prof Mary Koss, Dr Nata Duvvury, Dr Kate Wood, | ||||
| Aim: Introduction: An evaluation of an HIV behavioural intervention (Stepping Stones) provided an opportunity to explore the experiences of research participation among rural South African young people, namely: what motivated them to participate; any negative reactions encountered; and their emotional responses to being asked sensitive questions. This paper presents and discussed qualitative and quantitative findings on participants perceptions of research participation, especially giving blood for HIV testing, and the extent to which young people discussed negative aspects of their research participation. | ||||
| Method / Issue: Methods: Interviews were conducted in 70 villages with 934 men and 1053 women 24 months after enrolment into the study. Questions were included in the final interviews for the study. All interview rounds asked about sexual practices, gender-based violence and blood was taken for HIV testing. A descriptive analysis of findings and model of whether baseline violence exposures predict responses at 24 months will be presented. Qualitative research was also conducted with 10 men and 10 women from intervention communities and 5 men and 5 women from a control arm site. They had 2-3 in-depth interviews before the intervention and one some months afterwards. | ||||
| Results / Comments: Results: Three quarters of the participants enrolled at baseline were interviewed at 24 months. Almost all of those not interviewed were unavailable due to migration. 98.5% decided to participate in the trial because it offered a chance to help their community, 95.3% also wanted an HIV test and 54.7% said the R20 (US$3) incentive had been a very important motivation. 98% said they were pleased to have participated in the study, but 9.1% felt that with hindsight they would not have participated. 8.5% said there had been arguments at home over study participation. 7.5% said their partner had been cross when s/he discovered what was in the questionnaire and 11 (0.6%) participants were beaten because of the study, mostly by brothers who opposed them giving blood. 74.1% were encouraged by their partner to taken their HIV results. Despite highly sensitive questions, 97.8% of participants agreed that the interviews really helped them. The qualitative research showed that in some communities there were concerns about blood tests, a suspicion that the MRC was buying blood and that this might be used for either nefarious purposes or sold for profit. There was also concern that people might have been injected with HIV, an idea linked to media discussion of vaccine trials. Although participants did not believe this it had a negative impact on them as it led to tensions between participating and non-participating youth, altered their willingness to engage with others over Stepping Stones and on some level had a generally negative impact on their emotional well-being with respect to involvement in the research. | ||||
| Discussion: Conclusions: Study participation was largely altruistically motivated. Adverse reactions from family and friends were encountered, but not common. They mostly related to concerns about the HIV test and giving blood and concerns and misunderstandings here, mainly in the community around participants were common. There were no reported adverse reactions associated with the questions on gender-based violence. The findings show that it was feasible to conduct the research with community support, but that it is very important to pre-empt and address possible concerns, and be sensitive to cultural ideas around body fluids. | ||||
| Go Back | ||||
