HIV and AIDS related knowledge and attitudes towards learners infected with HIV: Survey among high school learners in Gauteng and North West provinces in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of the proposed HIV testing and counselling (HTC) initiative among learners at high school in South Africa depends on their acceptability of the service, which may be influenced by their HIV/AIDSknowledge, perceptions, and attitudes. The study assessed high school learners’ HIV knowledge and attitudes towards learners infected with HIV. The survey was part of formative evaluation with grade 10-12 learners in order to assess the acceptability of HTC at schools. The study consisted of 17 high schools in two provinces in South Africa. T- tests were used to compare the differences in the mean HIV knowledge scores. Logistic regressions were performed to establish relationships between demographic variables, attitudes, and HIV knowledge scores. The sample consisted of 2970 learners aged 14-27years, 1810 (61%) had had sex, and 1494 (50.3%) had tested for HIV in the past year. The majority had high knowledge scores: 87% on HIV-related knowledge, 98.6% on the modes of transmission, and 73% on prevention. Overall, HIV knowledge was high, with a total mean score of 20.5 out of 26 points. There were significant differences in the HIV knowledge total mean scores; females had higher scores (M= 20.6, SD=2.3) than males (M=20.3, SD=2.4), and the younger age group (M= 20.5, SD=2.4) had higher scores than the older age group (M=20.1, SD=2.1). A quarter (25.4%) exhibited negative attitudes, 13.9% felt that HIV-positive learners should be isolated, and 75% would not date HIV-positive learners. Attitudes were associated with gender (OR=0.48, CI: 0.41-0.57), grades (OR=3.24, CI: 2.36-4.44), and total HIV knowledge scores (OR=2.21, CI: 1.43-3.43). Despite substantial HIV knowledge, there were knowledge gaps and misconceptions, which resulted in negative attitudes towards the disease. Appropriate sexual health education and HIV prevention interventions in school are crucial in correcting the knowledge gaps as well as reducing stigma and discrimination to assist learners to be accepting of HIV-positive persons.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".