Male circumcision, attitudes to HIV prevention and HIV status: a cross-sectional study in Botswana, Namibia and Swaziland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In efficacy trials male circumcision (MC) protected men against HIV infection. Planners need information relevant to MC programmes in practice. In 2008, we interviewed 2915 men and 4549 women aged 15-29 years in representative cluster samples in Botswana, Namibia and Swaziland, asking about socio-economic characteristics, knowledge and attitudes about HIV and MC and MC history. We tested finger prick blood samples for HIV. We calculated weighted frequencies of MC knowledge and attitudes, and MC history and HIV status. Multivariate analysis examined associations between MC and other variables and HIV status. In Botswana, 11% of young men reported MC, 28% in Namibia and 8% in Swaziland; mostly (75% in Botswana, 94% - mostly Herero - in Namibia and 68% in Swaziland) as infants or children. Overall, 6.5% were HIV positive (8.3% Botswana, 2.6% Namibia and 9.1% Swaziland). Taking other variables into account, circumcised men were as likely as uncircumcised men to be HIV positive. Nearly half of the uncircumcised young men planned to be circumcised; two-thirds of young men and women planned to have their sons circumcised. Some respondents had inaccurate beliefs and unhelpful views about MC and HIV, with variation between countries. Between 9 and 15% believed a circumcised man is fully protected against HIV; 20-26% believed men need not be tested for HIV before MC; 14-26% believed HIV-positive men who are circumcised cannot transmit the virus; and 8-34% thought it was "okay for a circumcised man to expect sex without a condom". Inaccurate perceptions about protection from MC could lead to risk compensation and reduce women's ability to negotiate safer sex. More efforts are needed to raise awareness about the limitations of MC protection, especially for women, and to study the interactions between MC roll out programmes and primary HIV prevention programmes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".