Changes in HIV knowledge, and socio-cultural and sexual attitudes in South India from 2003-2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As communities face serious pressures on traditional values, such as those posed by HIV infection, cultural inertia may result, whereby existing trends towards more liberalized views of sexuality are stalled. We examined changes in attitudes around HIV in Bagalkot district, south India, between 2003 and 2009. METHODS: General population surveys were conducted in 2003 and 2009, among approximately 6,600 randomly sampled men and women in 10 villages and 20 urban blocks of Bagalkot. Questions about HIV knowledge, sexuality, gender and condoms were included. We compared responses in the two surveys using a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: Awareness of HIV increased significantly from 76.9% in 2003 to 87.8% in 2009, and condom awareness increased significantly (37.4% to 65.4%) in all groups studied. However, in 2009, only 23% of people mentioned condoms as a means of prevention, an improvement from 8% in 2003 (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 3.3; 95%CI 2.6-4.1, p <0.001). There was a significant increase in the number of women believing sex workers should be compulsorily tested for HIV (76.3%-86.4%%, AOR 1.8; 95%CI 1.4-2.4, p<0.001). An increasing number agreed that "it is wrong to talk about sex" (p=0.05), especially women (21.9% vs. 32.4%, p<0.01). There was an increase in women who thought it "wrong to talk about AIDS in a respectable family", and more respondents in 2009 thought it improper to discuss condoms (15.6% vs. 27.4%, AOR 1.9, 95%CI 1.4-2.8, p=0.001). In 2003, 31.4% agreed that "access to condoms promotes promiscuity", increasing to 45.2% in 2009 (AOR 1.7; 95%CI 1.3-2.3, p<0.001). Educated and young urban women were the most likely to believe this. In 2003, 19.3% and in 2009 30.2% (AOR 1.8, 95%CI 1.4-2.3, p<0.001) thought that sex education promotes sexual activity and promiscuity. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increases over time in HIV-related knowledge and reductions in stigmatizing attitudes, resistance to changing cultural mores was apparent, with less willingness to embrace openness and discuss sexuality. Young and female respondents appeared to be the most resistant to change, reflecting a cultural inertia that mirrors studies of other pressures on traditional societal values. More effort is required to advocate among women and young people for healthy sexuality, openness and safe sex practices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".