Predictors of HIV prevention knowledge and sexual behaviors among students at Makerere University Kampala, Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prior reviews argue that unsafe sexual behaviors and poor HIV knowledge significantly increase the probability of acquiring HIV infections among adolescents. This study assessed the predictors of HIV prevention knowledge and sexual behaviors among Makerere university students in Uganda. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional survey. We performed a normality test using Shapiro Wilk test on knowledge score. Results revealed that knowledge score was not normally distributed. The study used two sample Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Kruskal Wallis Rank tests to assess the effect of HIV knowledge on demographic characteristics and sexual behaviors. Post-hoc tests were conducted using Bonferroni correction. Spearman rank correlation test was used for continuous variables while Chi-square and Fisher’s tests were used for categorical variables to assess the relationship between demographic characteristics and sexual behaviors. Results: We report results for 1337 students. The mean age was 21.2SD (1.6) and more than half 700(52.4%) were male students. The median HIV prevention knowledge score of students was 13 IQR (11-15) in the range of 0 to 18. Males significantly scored higher than females (13.0 IQR (12-15) vs. 12.0 IQR (10-14) p=0.000), an increase in age was associated with higher knowledge scores (Rho = 0.101, p = 0.000). Students in the third year of study significantly scored higher than those in the first year, and government-sponsored students scored higher than the privately sponsored students. HIV knowledge was also significantly associated with sexual experience, and condom use at univariate level but insignificant at multiple level analysis. Males were more likely to have ever had sex (31.7% vs. 12.7%) and ever used a condom (63% vs. 55%) than females respectively Conclusion: Our findings suggest that Makerere University students possessed good knowledge on HIV. There is evidence of an association between student’s knowledge, and demographic characteristics and a few sexual behaviors. Future behavioral and educational programs that target both sexually and non-sexually experienced students should address the gender differences.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".