Gender variation in self-reported likelihood of HIV infection in comparison with HIV test results in rural and urban Nigeria

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Behaviour change which is highly influenced by risk perception is a major challenge that HIV prevention efforts need to confront. In this study, we examined the validity of self-reported likelihood of HIV infection among rural and ur...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Fagbamigbe Adeniyi F, Akinyemi Joshua O, Adedokun Babatunde O, Bamgboye Elijah A
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2011-12-01
Series:AIDS Research and Therapy
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.aidsrestherapy.com/content/8/1/44
Description
Summary:<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Behaviour change which is highly influenced by risk perception is a major challenge that HIV prevention efforts need to confront. In this study, we examined the validity of self-reported likelihood of HIV infection among rural and urban reproductive age group Nigerians.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a cross-sectional study of a nationally representative sample of Nigerians. We investigated the concordance between self-reported likelihood of HIV and actual results of HIV test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess whether selected respondents' characteristics affect the validity of self-reports.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The HIV prevalence in the urban population was 3.8% (3.1% among males and 4.6% among females) and 3.5% in the rural areas (3.4% among males and 3.7% among females). Almost all the respondents who claimed they have high chances of being infected with HIV actually tested negative (91.6% in urban and 97.9% in rural areas). In contrast, only 8.5% in urban areas and 2.1% in rural areas, of those who claimed high chances of been HIV infected were actually HIV positive. About 2.9% and 4.3% from urban and rural areas respectively tested positive although they claimed very low chances of HIV infection. Age, gender, education and residence are factors associated with validity of respondents' self-perceived risk of HIV infection.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Self-perceived HIV risk is poorly sensitive and moderately specific in the prediction of HIV status. There are differences in the validity of self-perceived risk of HIV across rural and urban populations.</p>
ISSN:1742-6405