Knowledge of specific HIV transmission modes in relation to HIV infection in Mozambique

Devon D Brewer

doi:10.12688/f1000research.1-1.v1

Home Browse Knowledge of specific HIV transmission modes in relation to HIV infection...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Knowledge of specific HIV transmission modes in relation to HIV infection in Mozambique

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved]

Devon D Brewer

PUBLISHED 13 Jul 2012

Author details Author details

Interdisciplinary Scientific Research, Seattle, WA, USA

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: In prior research, Africans who knew about blood-borne risks were modestly less likely to be HIV-infected than those who were not aware of such risks.
Objectives/Methods: I examined the association between knowledge of specific HIV transmission modes and prevalent HIV infection with data from the 2009 Mozambique AIDS Indicator Survey.
Results: Respondents displayed high awareness of blood exposures and vaginal sex as modes of HIV transmission. However, only about half of respondents were aware of anal sex as a way HIV can be transmitted. After adjustments for demographics and sexual behaviors, respondents who knew that HIV could spread by contact with infected blood or by sharing injection needles or razor blades were less likely to be infected than those who did not know about these risks. Respondents who knew about sexual risks were as, or more, likely to be HIV infected as those who did not know about sexual risks. Also, children of HIV-uninfected mothers were less likely to be infected if their mothers were aware of blood-borne HIV risks than if their mothers were unaware.
Conclusion: HIV education campaigns in Mozambique and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa should include a focus on risks from blood exposures and anal sex.

Keywords

iatrogenic disease, HIV, knowledge, health education, infectious disease transmission

Corresponding author: Devon D Brewer

Competing interests: No relevant competing interests declared.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2012 Brewer DD. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

How to cite: Brewer DD. Knowledge of specific HIV transmission modes in relation to HIV infection in Mozambique [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2012, 1:1 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.1-1.v1) First published: 13 Jul 2012, 1:1 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.1-1.v1) Latest published: 13 Jul 2012, 1:1 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.1-1.v1)

Introduction

A wide variety of blood exposures is independently associated with incident and prevalent HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa^1–9. Anal sex has also been repeatedly associated with HIV infection in heterosexual Africans^10–15, with some exceptions^16,17. Knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks varies markedly across the region, with awareness much higher in West, central and East Africa than in southern Africa¹⁸. This geographic variation in knowledge corresponds closely to differences in HIV prevalence, such that countries in which many people know about blood-borne risks have much lower HIV prevalence than countries in which few know about these risks. Although HIV education campaigns in West, central and East Africa have included a focus on blood-borne risks, campaigns in Southern Africa have not, likely leading to deficits in Southern Africans’ knowledge. At the individual level, persons who know about blood-borne risks are modestly less likely to be HIV-infected than those who are not aware of such risks, independent of demographics and sexual behaviors¹⁸.

In contrast, belief in condom use as a strategy for avoiding HIV infection is positively associated with HIV infection at both the individual and national levels in sub-Saharan Africa¹⁸. That is, those who believe condoms are an effective strategy for preventing HIV transmission are more likely to be HIV-infected than those who do not believe condom use protects against HIV, independent of demographics and sexual behaviors.

Although long assumed to be rare, anal sex is not uncommon in sub-Saharan Africa, as modest to large proportions of heterosexual men and women report engaging in it^{10–15,19–27}. Research based on nonprobability samples suggests that many Africans are unaware that anal sex is a significant risk for HIV transmission. While 87% of young adult Nigerians in one study knew anal sex is an HIV risk²⁸, only 54% of men in Cape Town, South Africa in 1999¹⁹ and 29% of adolescents in a Western Cape (South Africa) township with very high HIV prevalence shared that perception²⁶. Some South African women in a qualitative study explained the lack of risk involved with anal sex²⁹. Moreover, Kenyan prostitutes viewed vaginal sex as equally or more risky than anal sex²¹. Throughout the last 13 years, researchers have noted that HIV education campaigns targeting heterosexuals in sub-Saharan Africa lack warnings about the risk of anal sex^{10,15,19,23,24,27,30}.

In this paper, I report on the relationship between knowledge of HIV transmission routes and prevalent HIV infection in Mozambique, a country with high HIV prevalence not included in prior analyses. I analyzed data from the 2009 Mozamibique AIDS Indicator Survey (AIS), a special version of the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) conducted in poor countries. The 2009 Mozambique AIS differs from prior DHS with respect to how knowledge of HIV transmission risks was measured. In the 2009 Mozambique AIS respondents were asked directly about several specific blood-borne and sexual transmission routes. The 2009 Mozambique AIS also involved HIV testing of children, enabling examination of the association between mothers’ knowledge of blood-borne HIV transmission routes and HIV infection in their children.

Methods

2009 Mozambique AIDS Indicator Survey (AIS) data

In the 2009 Mozambique AIS, the household participation rate was 99%, and 95% of eligible women (age 15-64) and 90% of eligible men (age 15–64) participated³¹. Ninety-two percent of adult respondents and 87% of children between ages 0 and 11 years provided dried blood spot specimens for HIV testing. HIV serostatus was determined with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test and confirmed by a different ELISA test. Specimens with discrepant ELISA results were confirmed by a further ELISA test. The 2009 Mozambique AIS data and documentation are available at http://www.measuredhs.com.

I included respondents’ data in analysis if they reported never having been tested previously for HIV and also reported awareness of HIV/AIDS. HIV counseling may, in some places, involve education about blood-borne and sexual risks³², which may confound the relationship between knowledge and serostatus³³. Respondents who did not report awareness of HIV/AIDS were not asked about ways that it could be transmitted. Ninety-seven percent of female respondents and 99% of male respondents reported they had heard of HIV/AIDS.

Respondents who reported awareness of HIV/AIDS were asked whether it was possible to transmit HIV through each of several types of direct and indirect interpersonal contact. I focused on knowledge of four types of contact: sharing injection needles/blades; contact with infected blood; unprotected vaginal sex (i.e., vaginal sex without a condom); and unprotected anal sex. I coded "don’t know" responses to these questions as "no".

For the analyses of mother’s knowledge and child’s serostatus, I included biological mother-child pairs in which the mother was HIV-uninfected, to eliminate confounding by vertical transmission.

2003 Mozambique Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data

In the 2003 Mozambique DHS, the household participation rate was 95%, and 91% of eligible women (age 15-49 years) and 81% of eligible men (age 15–64 years) participated³⁴. Women were recruited as respondents from all households, but men were recruited as respondents only from one-third of households. Respondents did not provide blood specimens for HIV testing. The 2003 Mozambique DHS data and documentation are also available at http://www.measuredhs.com.

As I did with the AIS data, I included respondents’ data in analysis if they reported never having been tested previously for HIV and also reported awareness of HIV/AIDS. Ninety-seven percent of female respondents and 99% of male respondents in the 2003 DHS reported they had heard of HIV/AIDS.

Respondents who reported awareness of HIV/AIDS were asked "Do you know how you can avoid HIV/AIDS?" Those answering affirmatively were then asked "How can you prevent HIV/AIDS?" Interviewers encouraged and recorded multiple responses, and responses were coded by DHS staff. To compare with the 2009 Mozambique AIS and other DHS, I focused on two measures: whether a respondent had a response that was coded as "only use sterilized syringes/needles" and "always use a condom". I coded "don’t know" responses to the open-ended question as "no" for each of these measures.

Statistical analysis

With the 2009 Mozambique AIS data, I computed cross-classifications, odds ratios, and the associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the relationships between each knowledge measure and prevalent HIV infection, separately for women and men. To examine the associations further, I calculated the odds ratios, with HIV status as the dependent variable and a knowledge measure as the independent variable, adjusted for age (in whole years), urban/rural residence, number of whole years of education, wealth (in quintiles), reported number of sex partners in the prior 12 months, and whether the respondent reported having had a sexually transmitted disease in the prior 12 months. In addition, I calculated adjusted odds ratios (AORs) in the manner just described but adjusting for each of the three other knowledge measures as well. I also computed the Pearson (phi) correlation between each pair of knowledge measures. I used SPSS 7.5 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA) to perform the analyses. I compared the adjusted odds ratios for Mozambique with similar DHS results from four countries in Southern Africa (Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe) based on knowledge measures derived from free responses to an open-ended question about ways to avoid HIV infection¹⁸.

Online search of HIV prevention education efforts focused on blood-borne risks

In July of 2011, I sought evidence of public HIV education campaigns focused on blood-borne risks in Mozambique by searching two online databases: the Google search engine and the Media/Materials Clearinghouse. For the Google search, I used the key words "Mozambique", "HIV", and "razor". I examined the resources identified until I found 30 consecutive resources to be irrelevant (for a total 320 resources examined). I repeated this search in September of 2011 at the Google’s Mozambican site, with the equivalent key words in Portuguese: "Moçambique", "VIH," and "lâmina" (290 resources examined). I also extended this search by adding, in turn, the names of the 14 HIV prevention programs and campaigns mentioned in the AIS questionnaire (for questions about respondents’ familiarity with the programs and campaigns)³¹. My Google search was not exhaustive, especially given the limited scope induced by the key word "razor". However, the razor blade is perhaps the most ubiquitous sharp instrument involving possible blood exposure in daily life in Mozambique. Any public education campaign about blood-borne HIV risks that excludes explicit mention of razor blades is probably superficial or very narrow. For the Media/Materials Clearinghouse search, I inspected all materials pertaining to Mozambique. I also examined any sources related to Mozambique that I had found in an earlier search of the US National Library of Medicine Gateway¹⁸.

Results

In the 2009 Mozambique AIS, over 90% of respondents reported that HIV could spread through shared needles/razors and nearly 80% reported that HIV could be spread through contact with infected blood (Table 1). Approximately 90% of women and men reported vaginal sex as an HIV transmission route. In contrast, only 48% of women and 58% of men thought that HIV could spread through anal sex.

Table 1. Knowledge of specific HIV transmission modes and relationship with prevalent HIV infection, Mozambique, 2009.

	Women				Men
			HIV prevalence				HIV prevalence
			acknowledged?				acknowledged?
Knowledge measure	N	% acknowledging	Yes	No	N	% acknowledging	Yes	No
Needles/razors	3383	90.4	12.2	12.0	3391	92.6	8.5	7.6
Blood contact	3378	77.3	11.7	13.8	3390	78.7	8.6	7.8
Vaginal sex	3381	87.1	12.5	10.3	3385	91.9	8.8	4.4
Anal sex	3378	47.9	13.6	10.9	3383	58.2	8.9	7.7

Before adjustments for demographics and sexual behavior variables, respondents who believed that HIV spread through vaginal or anal sex were more likely to be infected than those who did not believe HIV spread in that way (Table 1). In unadjusted analyses, respondents who reported that HIV could be transmitted through blood contact or reusing sharps were about as likely to be infected as respondents who did not think HIV was transmitted in that way.

Urban residence, education, and wealth were moderately positively associated with knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks (results not shown), and these same factors were positively related to HIV infection as well³¹. Consequently, the AORs between the knowledge measures and HIV infection in (Table 2 and Table 3) provide better estimates of the relationship between the knowledge measures and HIV infection.

Table 2. Associations between measures of knowledge of HIV transmission modes and prevalent HIV infection, Mozambican women, 2009.

		AOR single measure¹
Knowledge measure	Bivariate OR	Mozambique	4 Southern African countries²	AOR all measures³
Needles/razors	1.02 (0.72–1.45)	0.89 (0.62–1.27)	0.80 (0.70–0.92)	0.93 (0.63–1.37)
Blood contact	0.83 (0.65–1.05)	0.81 (0.63–1.03)	—	0.80 (0.62–1.03)
Vaginal sex	1.24 (0.89–1.72)	1.06 (0.76–1.49)	1.26 (1.13–1.42)	1.04 (0.72–1.49)
Anal sex	1.28 (1.04–1.58)	1.18 (0.95–1.46)	—	1.21 (0.96–1.51)

Table 2 Note: 95% confidence intervals in parentheses

¹Adjusted for age, urban/rural residence, education, wealth, reported number of sex partners in the prior 12 months, and reported sexually transmitted disease in the prior 12 months

²Summary of results from Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe for similar knowledge measure

³Includes same adjustments as for single measure AOR, but also adjusted for the 3 other knowledge measures

Table 3. Associations between measures of knowledge of HIV transmission modes and prevalent HIV infection, Mozambican men, 2009.

		AOR single measure¹
Knowledge measure	Bivariate OR	Mozambique	4 Southern African countries²	AOR all measures³
Needles/razors	1.13 (0.70–1.83)	0.91 (0.55–1.49)	0.86 (0.71–1.04)	0.87 (0.52–1.45)
Blood contact	1.11 (0.82–1.51)	0.95 (0.70–1.30)	—	0.93 (0.67–1.30)
Vaginal sex	2.10 (1.16–3.80)	1.85 (0.99–3.45)	1.21 (1.07–1.37)	1.93 (1.02–3.64)
Anal sex	1.18 (0.92–1.51)	1.03 (0.79–1.34)	—	0.98 (0.75–1.28)

Table 3 Note: 95% confidence intervals in parentheses

¹Adjusted for age, urban/rural residence, education, wealth, reported number of sex partners in the prior 12 months, and reported sexually transmitted disease in the prior 12 months

²Summary of results from Lesotho, Malawi, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe for similar knowledge measure

³Includes same adjustments as for single measure AOR, but also adjusted for the 3 other knowledge measures

After adjustments for demographic factors and sexual behavior variables, the measures of knowledge of blood-borne risks become inversely related to HIV infection. That is, respondents who reported that HIV can spread through shared needles/razors and blood contact were less likely to be infected than those who reported that HIV does not spread through such means, once demographics and sexual behaviors were held constant. The adjustments for potential confounders also caused the positive associations for knowledge of vaginal sex risk in women and knowledge of anal sex risk in men to disappear. However, the adjusted associations for knowledge of anal sex risk in women and knowledge of vaginal sex risk in men remained meaningfully positive. In particular, men who believed HIV spreads through vaginal sex were almost twice as likely to be infected as men who did not believe this (Table 3).

The adjusted odds ratios for knowledge of shared needles/razors as transmission risks are generally similar to those for knowledge of avoiding shared razors as an HIV prevention strategy in four other countries in Southern Africa (Table 2 and Table 3). The adjusted associations for knowledge of vaginal sex risk also approximate those for knowledge of condoms as a prevention strategy from the other Southern African countries.

The blood-borne risk knowledge measures correlated moderately with each other (r = 0.26–0.29) as did the sexual risk knowledge measures (r = 0.23–0.29). The associations between one blood-borne risk knowledge measure and one sexual risk knowledge measure were weaker (r = 0.12–0.23). Nonetheless, when all four knowledge measures were included in analysis together (last column in (Table 2 and Table 3), the associations between each knowledge measure and HIV infection were almost the same as when the knowledge measures were analyzed separately.

HIV uninfected mothers’ knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks was also inversely related to their children’s HIV status. Children whose mothers knew that contact with blood is an HIV risk were less likely to be infected (0.4%; 11/2511) than children whose mothers did not know about this risk (1.2%; 7/591; OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14–0.95). Similarly, children whose mothers knew that sharing needles and razors was a risk were also less likely to be infected (0.5%, 16/2918) than children whose mothers were unaware of this risk (1.1%, 2/185; OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.12–2.21).

In the 2003 Mozambique DHS, 9.8% (1110/11381) of women and 18.9% (413/2709) of men recalled "only use sterilized syringes/needles" as a way to prevent HIV. However, 55% (6253/11381) of women and 68% (1845/2709) of men recalled "always use a condom" as a way to prevent HIV.

There was no online evidence of public HIV education campaigns that focused on blood-borne transmission risks in Mozambique. Some participants in a face-to-face community HIV education program that was implemented in Mozambique credited the program with informing them about some blood-borne risks^35,36. However, none of the descriptions of the program at the program’s website (http://www.steppingstonesfeedback.org) or elsewhere online indicate that this topic is formally covered in the program.

Discussion

Adult Mozambicans displayed very high awareness of some blood exposures and vaginal sex as modes of HIV transmission when directly asked about such contact in the 2009 Mozambique AIDS Indicator Survey. However, only a little more than half of respondents were aware of anal sex as a way HIV can be transmitted. After adjustments for demographics and sexual behaviors, knowledge of blood-borne risks was inversely associated with prevalent HIV infection. That is, respondents who knew that HIV could spread by contact with infected blood or by sharing injection needles or razor blades were less likely to be infected than those who did not know about these risks. Knowledge of sexual risks was negligibly to positively related to prevalent HIV infection. The positive association was strongest in men: those acknowledging unprotected vaginal sex as a risk were almost twice as likely to be infected with HIV as those not acknowledging. These associations between knowledge of blood-borne and sexual risks and prevalent HIV infection in Mozambique are similar in magnitude to those observed in four other Southern African countries based on roughly parallel knowledge measures. In addition, mothers’ knowledge of blood-borne risks was inversely associated with HIV infection in their children, which suggests that persons aware of such risks not only are more likely to take corresponding preventive measures for themselves but for those in their care as well. Moreover, there was no online evidence that public HIV education campaigns in Mozambique have included a meaningful focus on blood-borne risks.

The very high proportion of Mozambicans who were aware of blood-borne HIV risks (approximately 90%) in the 2009 AIS contrasts sharply with the very low proportions of 2003 Mozambique DHS respondents and DHS respondents in four other Southern African countries who mentioned such risks (8–23%)¹⁸. This difference seems to be due to assessing knowledge in the 2009 Mozambique AIS by recognition of specific risks and in the other DHS by recall of risks. In South Africa and Swaziland, the discrepancies between levels of knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks when measured by recognition^18,26,37 and recall^18,38–42 are even larger. These combined results refute my earlier hypothesis¹⁸ that Southern Africans and perhaps Africans generally know that contaminated blood can transmit HIV only when the exposure is visible and large. Instead, these results indicate that Southern Africans are typically aware of a variety of blood-borne HIV risks (including shared needles and razors that might not involve large or visible blood contamination), but only when specifically prompted.

Interestingly, observed levels of Southern Africans’ knowledge of sexual risks differ relatively little based on measurement approach. In the aforementioned studies, the proportions of respondents aware of sexual HIV transmission risks tended to be only slightly less when measured with recall methods than recognition methods. The difference between the proportion of 2003 Mozambique DHS respondents who recalled "always use a condom" as a prevention strategy (62%) and the proportion of 2009 Mozambique AIS respondents who recognized vaginal sex as a transmission mode (92%) is somewhat larger, although this could be due to increases over time in Mozambicans’ perceptions of vaginal sex as a risk.

The discrepancy between observed levels of knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks based on recall and recognition measurement reveals that blood-borne risks are not salient in the minds of Southern Africans. In 2011, Class interviewed 23 HIV infected adults and 26 parents or other caretakers of HIV infected children in Maputo, Mozambique (Deena Class, personal communications, July 11, 2011, August 27, 2011, and September 29, 2011). Nearly all of Class’ respondents noted blood-borne transmission as one mode of HIV spread. However, none of the adults attributed their infections to a blood exposure. Five of the infected children had seronegative biological mothers, indicating that these children had acquired their infections horizontally. Remarkably, only one of these mothers suspected blood-borne transmission for her child. Furthermore, none of these five mothers were told by their healthcare providers how their children might have been infected. In another study, Zimbabwean youth almost universally recognized the potential for HIV transmission through shared razors, yet ranked the avoidance of sharing razors as the least effective strategy for preventing HIV in comparison to strategies focused on sexual exposures and behaviors not known to protect against infection (avoiding deep kissing and washing hands)⁴³. Similarly, Kenyans in Nyanza province grossly underestimated how long HIV can survive on a blood-contaminated razor blade or inside a blood-contaminated needle or syringe⁴⁴. Thus, many Africans may recognize blood-borne HIV transmission as a theoretical possibility, but regard it as unlikely in practice.

Such apparent misunderstandings of blood-borne HIV transmission are not surprising given the lack of public education about blood-borne risks in sub-Saharan Africa. Just as in other African countries¹⁸, efforts to educate Mozambican traditional healers about hygienic practices began decades ago^45,46 and continue to this day^47,48. There was also at least one attempt to educate barbers about blood-borne risks in the early 1990s⁴⁹. However, I found no good evidence that public HIV education campaigns in Mozambique have in the past focused on blood-borne risks to any meaningful extent. Furthermore, as in other Southern African countries¹⁸, large recent and current public HIV education campaigns in Mozambique exclude mention of blood-borne risks^50,51 (see also: One Love Regional Campaign – Southern Africa, and Center for Communication Programs). Indeed, Class’ Mozambican respondents who noted blood-borne transmission as one mode of HIV spread said they learned of these risks informally, not from HIV education campaigns, health care providers, or public health sources (Deena Class, personal communication, September 29, 2011).

Mozambicans’ awareness of anal sex as a transmission risk was much lower than their awareness of vaginal sex as a risk, even though the actual risk from anal sex is much higher. Contrary to my expectation, knowledge of anal sex risk was not associated with lower rate of HIV infection. It is unclear why this is so. Further investigation of the perceived risk of anal sex (e.g., whether risk differs for men and women) and whether respondents engage in anal sex might help clarify this result.

Beliefs in vaginal sex as an HIV transmission risk and condom use as an HIV prevention strategy¹⁸ are associated with a higher likelihood of HIV infection in Mozambique and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa. This is consistent with the lack of association between condom use in vaginal sex and incident HIV infection^14,52,53. Condom use itself may even make people more vulnerable to infection by reducing mucosal exposure to HIV and thus hindering the development of alloimmunity against HIV^54,55.

To determine the modes of transmission of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa with confidence, researchers must assess blood and sexual exposures comprehensively in incident HIV cases and controls, trace their contacts corresponding to such exposures, and sequence the DNA in infected persons’ HIV isolates^56–58. In the meantime, HIV education campaigns in Mozambique and other poor countries should focus on blood-borne and anal sex transmission risks comprehensively and emphasize strategies for avoiding these dangers^59–61.

Competing interests

No relevant competing interests declared.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Acknowledgments

I thank Stuart Brody, Deena Class, David Gisselquist, and John Potterat for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. I also thank the government of the Republic of Mozambique for making the data from the 2009 Mozambique AIS and 2003 Mozambique DHS publicly available.

References

1. St Lawrence JS, Klaskala W, Kankasa C, et al.: Factors associated with HIV prevalence in a pre-partum cohort of Zambian women. Int J STD AIDS. 2006; 17(9): 607–613. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Deuchert E: Maternal health care and the spread of AIDS in Burkina Faso and Cameroon. World Health Pop. 2007; 9(3): 55–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
3. Deuchert E, Brody S: The role of health care in the spread of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from Kenya. Int J STD AIDS. 2006; 17(11): 749–752. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
4. Brewer DD, Potterat JJ, Roberts JM Jr, et al.: Male and female circumcision associated with prevalent HIV infection in virgins and adolescents in Kenya, Lesotho, and Tanzania. Ann Epidemiol. 2007; 17(3): 217–226. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Gisselquist D: Points to consider: Responses to HIV/AIDS in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. Adonis and Abbey Publishers Ltd, London; 2007. Reference Source
6. Peters EJ, Brewer DD, Udonwa NE, et al.: Diverse blood exposures associated with incident HIV infection in Calabar, Nigeria. Int J STD AIDS. 2009; 20(12): 846–851. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. Okinyi M, Brewer DD, Potterat JJ, et al.: Horizontally acquired HIV infection in Kenyan and Swazi children. Int J STD AIDS. 2009; 20(12): 852–857. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Vaz P, Pedro A, Le Bozec S, et al.: Nonvertical, nonsexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010; 29(3): 271–274. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Brewer DD: Scarification and male circumcision associated with HIV infection in Mozambican children and youth. WebmedCentral EPIDEMIOLOGY 2011, 2(9): WMC002206. Reference Source
10. Lane T, Pettifor A, Pascoe S, et al.: Heterosexual anal intercourse increases risk of HIV infection among young South African men. AIDS. 2006; 20(1): 123–125. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
11. Mlotshwa M, Abdool Karim Q, Frohlich J, et al.: Risk factors for HIV infection in young women in rural South Africa: implications for HIV prevention trials. Abstract MOPE0276, 17th International AIDS Conference, Mexico City, August, 2008. Reference Source
12. Grijsen ML, Graham SM, Mwangome M, et al.: Screening for genital and anorectal sexually transmitted infections in HIV prevention trials in Africa. Sex Transm Infect. 2008; 84(5): 364–370. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Adoga MP, Banwat EB, Forbi JC, et al.: Human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus: sero-prevalence, co-infection and risk factors among prison inmates in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2009; 3(7): 539–547. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Feldblum PJ, Lie C, Weaver MA, et al.: Baseline factors associated with incident HIV and STI in four microbicide trials. Sex Transm Dis. 2010; 37(10): 594–601. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Kalichman SC, Simbayi LC, Cain D, et al.: Heterosexual anal intercourse among community and clinical settings in Cape Town, South Africa. Sex Transm Infect. 2009; 85(6): 411–415. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Mwakagile D, Mmari E, Makwaya C, et al.: Sexual behaviour among youths at high risk for HIV-1 infection in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Sex Transm Infect. 2001; 77(4): 255–259. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Priddy FH, Wakasiaka S, Hoang TD, et al.: Anal sex, vaginal practices, and HIV incidence in female sex workers in urban Kenya: implications for the development of intravaginal HIV prevention methods. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2011; 27(10): 1067–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
18. Brewer DD: Knowledge of blood-borne transmission risk is inversely associated with HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2011; 5(3): 182–198. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Ramjee G, Gouws E, Andrews A, et al.: The acceptability of a vaginal microbicide among South African men. Int Fam Planning Perspect. 2001; 27(4): 164–170. Reference Source
20. Brody S, Potterat JJ: Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa. Int J STD AIDS. 2003; 14(7): 431–436. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Ferguson A, Morris C: Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa. Int J STD AIDS. 2003; 14(12): 856. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Simbayi LC, Kalichman SC, Jooste S, et al.: Risk factors for HIV-AIDS among youth in Cape Town, South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2005; 9(1): 53–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Schwandt M, Morris C, Ferguson A, et al.: Anal and dry sex in commercial sex work, and relation to risk for sexually transmitted infections and HIV in Meru, Kenya. Sex Transm Infect. 2006; 82(5): 392–396. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
24. Genberg BL, Kulich M, Kawichai S, et al.: HIV risk behaviors in sub-Saharan Africa and Northern Thailand: baseline behavioral data from Project Accept. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008; 49(3): 309–319. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
25. Morhason-Bello IO, Oladokun A, Enakpene CA, et al.: Sexual behaviour of in-school adolescents in Ibadan, South-West Nigeria. Afr J Reprod Health. 2008; 12(2): 89–97. PubMed Abstract
26. DeJanes W: Knowledge, substance use, and gender differences associated with HIV infection risk among youth in a South African township. Med Sociol Online. 2009; 4(2): 3–25. Reference Source
27. Kazaura MR, Masatu MC: Sexual practices among unmarried adolescents in Tanzania. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9: 373. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
28. Ola TM, Oludare BA: Sexual practices and knowledge about HIV/AIDS among Nigerian secondary school students. Int J Health Res. 2008; 1: 197–205. Reference Source
29. Stadler JJ, Delany S, Mntambo M, et al.: Sexual coercion and sexual desire: ambivalent meanings of heterosexual anal sex in Soweto, South Africa. AIDS Care. 2007; 19(10): 1189–1193. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Karim SS, Ramjee G: Anal sex and HIV transmission in women. Am J Public Health. 1998; 88(8): 1265–1266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
31. Instituto Nacional de Saúde (INS), Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE), ICF Macro:Inquérito Nacional de Prevalência, Riscos Comportamentais e Informação sobre o HIV e SIDA em Moçambique 2009. INS, INE, and ICF Macro, Calverton, Maryland, USA 2010. Reference Source
32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:Antenatal pre-test session flipchart.2011.
33. Matambo R, Dauya E, Mutswanga J, et al.: Voluntary counseling and testing by nurse counselors: what is the role of routine repeated testing after a negative result? Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 42(4): 569–571. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
34. Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE), Ministério da Saúde (MS), ORC Macro: Moçambique Inquérito Demográfico e de Saúde 2003. INE, MS, and ORC Macro, Calverton, MD, USA 2005.
35. Action Aid Mozambique, Save the Children UK, UNICEF: Stepping Stones Pilot Program Evaluation: Zambezia 19991999. Reference Source
36. Stepping Stones Evaluation - District of Mandimba.2002. Reference Source
37. Department of Health (Republic of South Africa), South African Medical Research Council: South Africa Demographic and Health Survey 1998.2002. Reference Source
38. Northern Cape Department of Health, Academy for Educational Development/Capable Partners Programme South Africa: A rapid assessment of the extent to which knowledge, attitude and practice of maternal nutrition, infant, and young child feeding in the context of PMTCT of HIV are integrated in the community.2008.
39. Tuli K: Ndwedwe Child Survival Project KwaZulu Natal, South Africa.2006. Reference Source
40. Versteeg M, Couper I, Mbiza E, et al.: Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding HIV and AIDS in the Segwaelane and Damonsville communities. Madibeng Centre for Research, Brits, South Africa; 2005. Reference Source
41. Crush J, Raimundo I, Simelane H, et al.: Migration-induced HIV and AIDS in rural Mozambique and Swaziland. Idasa, Cape Town; 2010. Reference Source
42. Pettifor AE, Rees HV, Steffenson A, et al.: HIV and sexual behaviour among young South Africans: a national survey of 15-24 year olds. Reproductive Health Research Unit, University of the Witwatersrand 2004. Reference Source
43. Banana C: An investigation into the risk behaviour regarding HIV transmission among youth in Bulawayo. PhD thesis. University of South Africa 2007. Reference Source
44. Ounga T, Okinyi M, Onyuro S, et al.: Knowledge of HIV survival on skin-piercing instruments among young adults in Nyanza Province, Kenya. Int J STD AIDS. 2009; 20(2): 119–122. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
45. Green EC, Zokwe B, Dupree JD: The experience of an AIDS prevention program focused on South African traditional healers. Soc Sci Med. 1995; 40(4): 503–515. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
46. Swarns RL: Mozambique enlists healers in AIDS prevention. New York Times, December 6, 1999. Reference Source
47. Mozambique News Agency: HIV/AIDS – new training manual for traditional healers. January 9, 2011. Reference Source
48. Agência de Informação de Moçambique: HIV/SIDA: em preparação manual de treino para "curandeiros". January 8, 2011. Reference Source
49. Associacao dos Barbeiros, Mozambique Ministerio de Saude, Central de Educacao em Saude Publica: O barbeiro e o SIDA, por cada corte uma lamina nova, proteja a sua vida e a dos seus clientes [poster];1992.
50. Hainsworth G, Zilhão I, Badiani R, et al.: From inception to large scale: the Geração Biz Programme in Mozambique. World Health Organization, Geneva 2009. Reference Source
51. Hattori MK, Richter K, Greene J, et al.: Trust, caution, and condom use with regular partners: an evaluation of the trusted partner campaign targeting youth in four countries. Soc Marketing Q. 2010; 16(2): 18–48. Reference Source
52. Allen S, Meinzen-Derr J, Kautzman M, et al.: Sexual behavior of HIV discordant couples after HIV counseling and testing. AIDS. 2003; 17(5): 733–740. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
53. Wawer MJ, Gray RH, Sewankambo NK, et al.: Rates of HIV-1 transmission per coital act, by stage of HIV-1 infection, in Rakai, Uganda. J Infect Dis. 2005; 191(9): 1403–1409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
54. Kingsley C, Peters B, Babaahmady K, et al.: Heterosexual and homosexual partners practising unprotected sex may develop allogeneic immunity and to a lesser extent tolerance. PLoS ONE. 2009; 4(11): e7938. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
55. Peters B, Whittall T, Babaahmady K, et al.: Effect of heterosexual intercourse on mucosal alloimmunisation and resistance to HIV-1 infection. Lancet. 2004; 363(9408): 518–524. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
56. Brewer DD, Rothenberg RB, Potterat JJ, et al.: HIV epidemiology in sub-Saharan Africa: rich in conjecture, poor in data. Int J STD AIDS. 2004; 15: 63–65. Publisher Full Text
57. Brody S, Potterat JJ: Establishing valid AIDS monitoring and research in countries with generalized epidemics. Int J STD AIDS. 2004; 15(1): 1–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
58. Brewer DD, Hagan H, Sullivan DG, et al.: Social structural and behavioral underpinnings of hyperendemic Hepatitis C virus transmission in drug injectors. J Infect Dis. 2006; 194(6): 764–772. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
59. Gisselquist D, Friedman E, Potterat JJ, et al.: Four policies to reduce HIV transmission through unsterile health care. Int J STD AIDS. 2003; 14(11): 717–722. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
60. Correa M, Gisselquist D, Gore DH, et al.: Blood-borne HIV: risks and prevention. Orient Longman Private Limited, Chennai. 2008. Reference Source
61. Gisselquist D, Correa M: Don’t get stuck with HIV: how to protect yourself during health care and cosmetic procedures. 2011. Reference Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 13 Jul 2012

Author details Author details

Interdisciplinary Scientific Research, Seattle, WA, USA

Competing interests

No relevant competing interests declared.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 13 Jul 2012, 1:1

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.1-1.v1

© 2012 Brewer DD. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Brewer DD. Knowledge of specific HIV transmission modes in relation to HIV infection in Mozambique [version 1; peer review: 2 approved, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2012, 1:1 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.1-1.v1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 13 Jul 2012

Views

333

Reviewer Report 02 Aug 2012

Carlos Morel, FIOCRUZ/CDTS, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Ministry of Health, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.50.r101

This is an interesting article. However, I am sure there are some sections where readers would ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 02 Aug 2012

Devon Brewer, Interdisciplinary Scientific Research, USA

02 Aug 2012

Author Response

I thank Dr. Morel for his review. I computed the adjusted odds ratios with multiple logistic regression. If there are any other points that require more information, I hope reviewers ... Continue reading I thank Dr. Morel for his review. I computed the adjusted odds ratios with multiple logistic regression. If there are any other points that require more information, I hope reviewers and readers will highlight those sections, so I can clarify them.
I thank Dr. Morel for his review. I computed the adjusted odds ratios with multiple logistic regression. If there are any other points that require more information, I hope reviewers and readers will highlight those sections, so I can clarify them.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 02 Aug 2012

Devon Brewer, Interdisciplinary Scientific Research, USA

02 Aug 2012

Author Response

I thank Dr. Morel for his review. I computed the adjusted odds ratios with multiple logistic regression. If there are any other points that require more information, I hope reviewers ... Continue reading I thank Dr. Morel for his review. I computed the adjusted odds ratios with multiple logistic regression. If there are any other points that require more information, I hope reviewers and readers will highlight those sections, so I can clarify them.
I thank Dr. Morel for his review. I computed the adjusted odds ratios with multiple logistic regression. If there are any other points that require more information, I hope reviewers and readers will highlight those sections, so I can clarify them.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

271

Reviewer Report 27 Jul 2012

Nigel Livesley, USAID East Africa, University Research Co., LLC, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.50.r100

This paper has a number of serious flaws.

a) The literature is quoted selectively and issues are oversimplified.

The paper states that blood exposure is important but does not state that the preponderance of studies show that sexual exposure is by far ... Continue reading

The paper seems to claim that knowledge about blood borne infections account for the regional differences in HIV prevalence. A single citation (a paper by the same author) for this claim is provided. Other possibilities are not discussed such as:

The paper also implies that condoms are not protective against HIV. Again this is not what the preponderance of studies shows:

Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission.

The author also notes the reference Allen S et al. (2003) as evidence for the lack of an association between condoms and HIV incidence but the study found that incident HIV infection was found in 5.4% of testing intervals when discordant couples had unprotected sex and in 2.6% of testing intervals when the discordant couples did not have unprotected sex.

b) The interpretation of the results are not always supported by the data in the paper:

The Author states:

“After adjustments for demographic factors and sexual behavior variables, the measures of knowledge of blood-borne risks become inversely related to HIV infection. That is, respondents who reported that HIV can spread through shared needles/razors and blood contact were less likely to be infected than those who reported that HIV does not spread through such means, once demographics and sexual behaviors were held constant”.

However, it is unclear how the author reaches this conclusion. The OR for the above relationships are about 0.9 and the confidence intervals are wide. This is not evidence of a relationship.

The author also states:

“The adjustments for potential confounders also caused the positive associations for knowledge of vaginal sex risk in women and knowledge of anal sex risk in men to disappear. However, the adjusted associations for knowledge of anal sex risk in women and knowledge of vaginal sex risk in men remained meaningfully positive.”

It is again unclear what “meaningfully positive” means. The OR for women and anal sex has wide CI and doesn’t meet statistical significance. A definition of what the criteria for meaningfully positive are would be useful.

And finally; The OR for men’s understanding of vaginal sex is close to being statistically significant.

c) The paper’s conclusion is not supported:

The author claims that:

“HIV education campaigns in Mozambique and elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa should include a focus on risks from blood exposures and anal sex.”

However, the data in the paper doesn’t suggest that this is called for, and even if the data were supportive of the need to do this, there are opportunity costs associated with doing so. What should health workers or health educators not do to create time and money for this change in message?

Is the title appropriate for the content of the article? Yes
Is the abstract a suitable summary of the article? No (see above)
Is the article well constructed and clear? No (see above)
Is there adequate analysis, including information on how the data were analyzed (e.g. programs, code, stats etc.)? There is no information on how the author decided that some results were important
Are the conclusions sensible and balanced? No (see above).
Have any potential biases or competing interests been disclosed? Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 30 Jul 2012

Devon Brewer, Interdisciplinary Scientific Research, USA

30 Jul 2012

Author Response

I thank Dr. Livesley for his review. He claims that I cited selectively from the literature and oversimplified issues, and that my interpretation of the results and
... Continue reading
I thank Dr. Livesley for his review. He claims that I cited selectively from the literature and oversimplified issues, and that my interpretation of the results and the conclusions are not supported by the data. In this reply, I demonstrate that these charges are incorrect.

Livesley states that “the preponderance of studies show that sexual exposure is by far the most common mode of HIV transmission” and criticizes me for not citing three articles that he thinks support this view. However, there is no solid empirical evidence that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa, because studies with designs rigorous enough to determine modes of transmission have not yet been conducted. In the last paragraph of the current article, I wrote “to determine the modes of transmission of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa with confidence, researchers must assess blood and sexual exposures comprehensively in incident HIV cases and controls, trace their contacts corresponding to such exposures, and sequence the DNA in infected persons’ HIV isolates56 57 58.” My colleagues and I have published this plea dozens of times in the last nine years, and no other researchers have attempted to conduct the necessary research. Simply stating that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of transmission, or wishing it to be the case, does not make it so; rather, in science, strong empirical evidence must be presented to support a claim. My colleagues and I carried out a study in Calabar, Nigeria in which we assessed blood and sexual exposures fairly comprehensively in incident HIV cases and controls (Peters et al., 2009). We found that diverse blood exposures were associated with incident HIV infection. To my knowledge, no epidemiologic study of HIV infection before or since has matched or surpassed the strength of the research design of the Calabar study. Consequently, little can be concluded about the dominant modes of HIV transmission in Africa.

Livesley cites Gisselquist D et al. (2004), Hauri et al. (2004), and White et al. (2007) as sources to support the hypothesis that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. These citations that do not provide support for this hypothesis. Gisselquist et al. assessed a small set of risk factors (and only one blood exposure, receipt of injections) in relation to incident HIV infection in Rwanda. As I have noted, it is not possible to determine modes of transmission with such a design, especially when blood exposures were so incompletely assessed. Hauri et al. and White et al. reported results from modeling exercises on the share of HIV infections that may be due to unhygienic medical injections (just one of many blood exposures encountered by Africans). I and others disagree with many of the assumptions and parameter estimates used and emphasized in their simulations (because they are at odds with empirical data). Their models also lack several key risk components of unhygienic injection practices. I refrain from a detailed technical critique of these studies here. Crucially, neither modeling exercise produced an estimate of the share of HIV transmission due to vaginal sex. Furthermore, modelers have not been able to simulate HIV epidemics that resemble African epidemics with parameter estimates derived from empirical data on Africans’ vaginal sex behavior (Brewer et al., 2007).

Livesley faults me for citing my prior article that showed a strong inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV prevalence at the national level in sub-Saharan Africa (Brewer, 2011). It is unclear why this is problematic, as the result is robust, and consistent with individual-level results and historical prevention campaign experience. Livesley notes that I did not discuss other possibilities for national variation in HIV prevalence. Such variation is not the focus of my current article; instead, I focused on knowledge of HIV transmission risks in Mozambique. Nonetheless, it is worth evaluating the two sources Livesley cites, both based on the Four Cities Study, for other explanations of variation in HIV prevalence across Africa. The Four Cities Study did not involve assessing participants’ blood exposures. Perhaps even more importantly, the results from the Four Cities Study showed that putative sexual risk factors (such as sex partner concurrency and other high risk sexual behaviors) were inversely associated (in the case of concurrency) or not associated with HIV prevalence in the four cities (Auvert et al., 2001; Lagarde et al. 2001; Rothenberg et al., 2002).

In my F1000Research article, I stated that there is a “lack of association between condom use in vaginal sex and incident HIV infection14 52 53″ (p. 5) and cited three articles on studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (the only three I was aware of at the time that reported on the association or lack thereof). These three articles showed inconsistent results (Feldblum et al., 2010: positive association; Wawer et al., 2005: no apparent association; Allen et al., 2003: inverse association), which I summarized as a lack of association. Livesley cites Weller and Davis-Beaty 2007 for the hypothesis that condoms protect against HIV transmission during vaginal sex. However, Weller and Davis-Beaty’s summary included studies from regions outside of Africa, did not account for confounding of condom use with other risk factors (such as common blood exposures in Africa), and did not include Feldblum et al. and Wawer et al. results. About half of the studies in Weller and Davis-Beaty’s summary were based on condom use measures that applied to anal sex as well as vaginal sex. Consequently, Weller et al. results cannot be used as an estimate of the protective effect of condom use during vaginal sex in sub-Saharan Africa or elsewhere. The protective effect of condom use during anal sex, though, has been well-established in other research.

Livesley questions my description of adjusted odds ratios of 0.81 to 0.95 for the association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and prevalent HIV infection as indicating an inverse relationship. By definition, odds ratios under 1.0 reflect inverse or negative relationships. The adjusted odds ratios were in the inverse direction for two different measures of knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and for both women and men. The confidence intervals for these odds ratios do include 1.0. However, the consistency of the association across measures and sample subgroups, and similarity in magnitude of the association to similar associations in neighboring and nearby countries mean that it is warranted to describe the relationship as inverse.

Livesley criticizes me for characterizing the adjusted odds ratios between knowledge of anal sex and HIV infection in women (AOR = 1.18) and knowledge of vaginal sex and HIV infection in men (AOR = 1.85) as “meaningfully positive.” In this context, I intended “meaningfully positive” to refer to associations that were mild to moderate in magnitude. Livesley also correctly noted that “the OR for men’s understanding of vaginal sex is close to being statistically significant.” This result means that Mozambican men who believed that HIV can be transmitted through vaginal sex without a condom were twice as likely to be infected with HIV as men who did not believe vaginal sex was a risk.

Livesley argues that the results in my article do not suggest that HIV education programs in sub-Saharan Africa should include a focus on blood-borne risks and anal sex. The results show that Mozambican adults who were unaware of blood-borne transmission were at increased risk for HIV infection, and that children of uninfected mothers who were unaware of blood-borne transmission were at much increased risk for HIV infection. Almost half of Mozambican adults did not know anal sex was an HIV transmission risk. In my opinion, these findings justify including a focus on blood-borne risks and anal sex in HIV education efforts.

Livesley further wonders how such topics could be incorporated in HIV prevention and education programming. Successful examples abound. As I discussed in my 2011 article, there is a “heavy emphasis on avoiding blood-borne risks in HIV education programs for primary school students in rich countries [69,70], travelers to poor (especially African) countries [71-73], and employees of the United Nations working in poor countries [74,75]” (p. 194). Most of these educational efforts have been standard and ongoing for over two decades. The risk of anal sex has also been continuously emphasized in HIV prevention and education programs in rich countries. Moreover, during the last 30 years, there have been many instances of HIV education campaigns highlighting blood-borne risks in west and central Africa (Brewer, 2011), although it is uncertain how widespread and consistent these efforts have been. These examples show that people can be more fully informed of the range of HIV risks without additional program cost.

The fundamental question is moral and ethical. On what grounds can HIV prevention and education programs in Africa, funded by taxpayers and sponsored by international agencies, foreign aid agencies, and national governments, continue to deprive people of highly relevant, life-saving information?

I thank Dr. Livesley for his review. He claims that I cited selectively from the literature and oversimplified issues, and that my interpretation of the results and the conclusions are not supported by the data. In this reply, I demonstrate that these charges are incorrect.

Livesley states that “the preponderance of studies show that sexual exposure is by far the most common mode of HIV transmission” and criticizes me for not citing three articles that he thinks support this view. However, there is no solid empirical evidence that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa, because studies with designs rigorous enough to determine modes of transmission have not yet been conducted. In the last paragraph of the current article, I wrote “to determine the modes of transmission of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa with confidence, researchers must assess blood and sexual exposures comprehensively in incident HIV cases and controls, trace their contacts corresponding to such exposures, and sequence the DNA in infected persons’ HIV isolates56 57 58.” My colleagues and I have published this plea dozens of times in the last nine years, and no other researchers have attempted to conduct the necessary research. Simply stating that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of transmission, or wishing it to be the case, does not make it so; rather, in science, strong empirical evidence must be presented to support a claim. My colleagues and I carried out a study in Calabar, Nigeria in which we assessed blood and sexual exposures fairly comprehensively in incident HIV cases and controls (Peters et al., 2009). We found that diverse blood exposures were associated with incident HIV infection. To my knowledge, no epidemiologic study of HIV infection before or since has matched or surpassed the strength of the research design of the Calabar study. Consequently, little can be concluded about the dominant modes of HIV transmission in Africa.

Livesley cites Gisselquist D et al. (2004), Hauri et al. (2004), and White et al. (2007) as sources to support the hypothesis that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. These citations that do not provide support for this hypothesis. Gisselquist et al. assessed a small set of risk factors (and only one blood exposure, receipt of injections) in relation to incident HIV infection in Rwanda. As I have noted, it is not possible to determine modes of transmission with such a design, especially when blood exposures were so incompletely assessed. Hauri et al. and White et al. reported results from modeling exercises on the share of HIV infections that may be due to unhygienic medical injections (just one of many blood exposures encountered by Africans). I and others disagree with many of the assumptions and parameter estimates used and emphasized in their simulations (because they are at odds with empirical data). Their models also lack several key risk components of unhygienic injection practices. I refrain from a detailed technical critique of these studies here. Crucially, neither modeling exercise produced an estimate of the share of HIV transmission due to vaginal sex. Furthermore, modelers have not been able to simulate HIV epidemics that resemble African epidemics with parameter estimates derived from empirical data on Africans’ vaginal sex behavior (Brewer et al., 2007).

Livesley faults me for citing my prior article that showed a strong inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV prevalence at the national level in sub-Saharan Africa (Brewer, 2011). It is unclear why this is problematic, as the result is robust, and consistent with individual-level results and historical prevention campaign experience. Livesley notes that I did not discuss other possibilities for national variation in HIV prevalence. Such variation is not the focus of my current article; instead, I focused on knowledge of HIV transmission risks in Mozambique. Nonetheless, it is worth evaluating the two sources Livesley cites, both based on the Four Cities Study, for other explanations of variation in HIV prevalence across Africa. The Four Cities Study did not involve assessing participants’ blood exposures. Perhaps even more importantly, the results from the Four Cities Study showed that putative sexual risk factors (such as sex partner concurrency and other high risk sexual behaviors) were inversely associated (in the case of concurrency) or not associated with HIV prevalence in the four cities (Auvert et al., 2001; Lagarde et al. 2001; Rothenberg et al., 2002).

In my F1000Research article, I stated that there is a “lack of association between condom use in vaginal sex and incident HIV infection14 52 53″ (p. 5) and cited three articles on studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (the only three I was aware of at the time that reported on the association or lack thereof). These three articles showed inconsistent results (Feldblum et al., 2010: positive association; Wawer et al., 2005: no apparent association; Allen et al., 2003: inverse association), which I summarized as a lack of association. Livesley cites Weller and Davis-Beaty 2007 for the hypothesis that condoms protect against HIV transmission during vaginal sex. However, Weller and Davis-Beaty’s summary included studies from regions outside of Africa, did not account for confounding of condom use with other risk factors (such as common blood exposures in Africa), and did not include Feldblum et al. and Wawer et al. results. About half of the studies in Weller and Davis-Beaty’s summary were based on condom use measures that applied to anal sex as well as vaginal sex. Consequently, Weller et al. results cannot be used as an estimate of the protective effect of condom use during vaginal sex in sub-Saharan Africa or elsewhere. The protective effect of condom use during anal sex, though, has been well-established in other research.

Livesley questions my description of adjusted odds ratios of 0.81 to 0.95 for the association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and prevalent HIV infection as indicating an inverse relationship. By definition, odds ratios under 1.0 reflect inverse or negative relationships. The adjusted odds ratios were in the inverse direction for two different measures of knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and for both women and men. The confidence intervals for these odds ratios do include 1.0. However, the consistency of the association across measures and sample subgroups, and similarity in magnitude of the association to similar associations in neighboring and nearby countries mean that it is warranted to describe the relationship as inverse.

Livesley criticizes me for characterizing the adjusted odds ratios between knowledge of anal sex and HIV infection in women (AOR = 1.18) and knowledge of vaginal sex and HIV infection in men (AOR = 1.85) as “meaningfully positive.” In this context, I intended “meaningfully positive” to refer to associations that were mild to moderate in magnitude. Livesley also correctly noted that “the OR for men’s understanding of vaginal sex is close to being statistically significant.” This result means that Mozambican men who believed that HIV can be transmitted through vaginal sex without a condom were twice as likely to be infected with HIV as men who did not believe vaginal sex was a risk.

Livesley argues that the results in my article do not suggest that HIV education programs in sub-Saharan Africa should include a focus on blood-borne risks and anal sex. The results show that Mozambican adults who were unaware of blood-borne transmission were at increased risk for HIV infection, and that children of uninfected mothers who were unaware of blood-borne transmission were at much increased risk for HIV infection. Almost half of Mozambican adults did not know anal sex was an HIV transmission risk. In my opinion, these findings justify including a focus on blood-borne risks and anal sex in HIV education efforts.

Livesley further wonders how such topics could be incorporated in HIV prevention and education programming. Successful examples abound. As I discussed in my 2011 article, there is a “heavy emphasis on avoiding blood-borne risks in HIV education programs for primary school students in rich countries [69,70], travelers to poor (especially African) countries [71-73], and employees of the United Nations working in poor countries [74,75]” (p. 194). Most of these educational efforts have been standard and ongoing for over two decades. The risk of anal sex has also been continuously emphasized in HIV prevention and education programs in rich countries. Moreover, during the last 30 years, there have been many instances of HIV education campaigns highlighting blood-borne risks in west and central Africa (Brewer, 2011), although it is uncertain how widespread and consistent these efforts have been. These examples show that people can be more fully informed of the range of HIV risks without additional program cost.

The fundamental question is moral and ethical. On what grounds can HIV prevention and education programs in Africa, funded by taxpayers and sponsored by international agencies, foreign aid agencies, and national governments, continue to deprive people of highly relevant, life-saving information?
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 30 Jul 2012

Devon Brewer, Interdisciplinary Scientific Research, USA

30 Jul 2012

Author Response

I thank Dr. Livesley for his review. He claims that I cited selectively from the literature and oversimplified issues, and that my interpretation of the results and
... Continue reading
I thank Dr. Livesley for his review. He claims that I cited selectively from the literature and oversimplified issues, and that my interpretation of the results and the conclusions are not supported by the data. In this reply, I demonstrate that these charges are incorrect.

Livesley states that “the preponderance of studies show that sexual exposure is by far the most common mode of HIV transmission” and criticizes me for not citing three articles that he thinks support this view. However, there is no solid empirical evidence that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa, because studies with designs rigorous enough to determine modes of transmission have not yet been conducted. In the last paragraph of the current article, I wrote “to determine the modes of transmission of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa with confidence, researchers must assess blood and sexual exposures comprehensively in incident HIV cases and controls, trace their contacts corresponding to such exposures, and sequence the DNA in infected persons’ HIV isolates56 57 58.” My colleagues and I have published this plea dozens of times in the last nine years, and no other researchers have attempted to conduct the necessary research. Simply stating that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of transmission, or wishing it to be the case, does not make it so; rather, in science, strong empirical evidence must be presented to support a claim. My colleagues and I carried out a study in Calabar, Nigeria in which we assessed blood and sexual exposures fairly comprehensively in incident HIV cases and controls (Peters et al., 2009). We found that diverse blood exposures were associated with incident HIV infection. To my knowledge, no epidemiologic study of HIV infection before or since has matched or surpassed the strength of the research design of the Calabar study. Consequently, little can be concluded about the dominant modes of HIV transmission in Africa.

Livesley cites Gisselquist D et al. (2004), Hauri et al. (2004), and White et al. (2007) as sources to support the hypothesis that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. These citations that do not provide support for this hypothesis. Gisselquist et al. assessed a small set of risk factors (and only one blood exposure, receipt of injections) in relation to incident HIV infection in Rwanda. As I have noted, it is not possible to determine modes of transmission with such a design, especially when blood exposures were so incompletely assessed. Hauri et al. and White et al. reported results from modeling exercises on the share of HIV infections that may be due to unhygienic medical injections (just one of many blood exposures encountered by Africans). I and others disagree with many of the assumptions and parameter estimates used and emphasized in their simulations (because they are at odds with empirical data). Their models also lack several key risk components of unhygienic injection practices. I refrain from a detailed technical critique of these studies here. Crucially, neither modeling exercise produced an estimate of the share of HIV transmission due to vaginal sex. Furthermore, modelers have not been able to simulate HIV epidemics that resemble African epidemics with parameter estimates derived from empirical data on Africans’ vaginal sex behavior (Brewer et al., 2007).

Livesley faults me for citing my prior article that showed a strong inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV prevalence at the national level in sub-Saharan Africa (Brewer, 2011). It is unclear why this is problematic, as the result is robust, and consistent with individual-level results and historical prevention campaign experience. Livesley notes that I did not discuss other possibilities for national variation in HIV prevalence. Such variation is not the focus of my current article; instead, I focused on knowledge of HIV transmission risks in Mozambique. Nonetheless, it is worth evaluating the two sources Livesley cites, both based on the Four Cities Study, for other explanations of variation in HIV prevalence across Africa. The Four Cities Study did not involve assessing participants’ blood exposures. Perhaps even more importantly, the results from the Four Cities Study showed that putative sexual risk factors (such as sex partner concurrency and other high risk sexual behaviors) were inversely associated (in the case of concurrency) or not associated with HIV prevalence in the four cities (Auvert et al., 2001; Lagarde et al. 2001; Rothenberg et al., 2002).

In my F1000Research article, I stated that there is a “lack of association between condom use in vaginal sex and incident HIV infection14 52 53″ (p. 5) and cited three articles on studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (the only three I was aware of at the time that reported on the association or lack thereof). These three articles showed inconsistent results (Feldblum et al., 2010: positive association; Wawer et al., 2005: no apparent association; Allen et al., 2003: inverse association), which I summarized as a lack of association. Livesley cites Weller and Davis-Beaty 2007 for the hypothesis that condoms protect against HIV transmission during vaginal sex. However, Weller and Davis-Beaty’s summary included studies from regions outside of Africa, did not account for confounding of condom use with other risk factors (such as common blood exposures in Africa), and did not include Feldblum et al. and Wawer et al. results. About half of the studies in Weller and Davis-Beaty’s summary were based on condom use measures that applied to anal sex as well as vaginal sex. Consequently, Weller et al. results cannot be used as an estimate of the protective effect of condom use during vaginal sex in sub-Saharan Africa or elsewhere. The protective effect of condom use during anal sex, though, has been well-established in other research.

Livesley questions my description of adjusted odds ratios of 0.81 to 0.95 for the association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and prevalent HIV infection as indicating an inverse relationship. By definition, odds ratios under 1.0 reflect inverse or negative relationships. The adjusted odds ratios were in the inverse direction for two different measures of knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and for both women and men. The confidence intervals for these odds ratios do include 1.0. However, the consistency of the association across measures and sample subgroups, and similarity in magnitude of the association to similar associations in neighboring and nearby countries mean that it is warranted to describe the relationship as inverse.

Livesley criticizes me for characterizing the adjusted odds ratios between knowledge of anal sex and HIV infection in women (AOR = 1.18) and knowledge of vaginal sex and HIV infection in men (AOR = 1.85) as “meaningfully positive.” In this context, I intended “meaningfully positive” to refer to associations that were mild to moderate in magnitude. Livesley also correctly noted that “the OR for men’s understanding of vaginal sex is close to being statistically significant.” This result means that Mozambican men who believed that HIV can be transmitted through vaginal sex without a condom were twice as likely to be infected with HIV as men who did not believe vaginal sex was a risk.

Livesley argues that the results in my article do not suggest that HIV education programs in sub-Saharan Africa should include a focus on blood-borne risks and anal sex. The results show that Mozambican adults who were unaware of blood-borne transmission were at increased risk for HIV infection, and that children of uninfected mothers who were unaware of blood-borne transmission were at much increased risk for HIV infection. Almost half of Mozambican adults did not know anal sex was an HIV transmission risk. In my opinion, these findings justify including a focus on blood-borne risks and anal sex in HIV education efforts.

Livesley further wonders how such topics could be incorporated in HIV prevention and education programming. Successful examples abound. As I discussed in my 2011 article, there is a “heavy emphasis on avoiding blood-borne risks in HIV education programs for primary school students in rich countries [69,70], travelers to poor (especially African) countries [71-73], and employees of the United Nations working in poor countries [74,75]” (p. 194). Most of these educational efforts have been standard and ongoing for over two decades. The risk of anal sex has also been continuously emphasized in HIV prevention and education programs in rich countries. Moreover, during the last 30 years, there have been many instances of HIV education campaigns highlighting blood-borne risks in west and central Africa (Brewer, 2011), although it is uncertain how widespread and consistent these efforts have been. These examples show that people can be more fully informed of the range of HIV risks without additional program cost.

The fundamental question is moral and ethical. On what grounds can HIV prevention and education programs in Africa, funded by taxpayers and sponsored by international agencies, foreign aid agencies, and national governments, continue to deprive people of highly relevant, life-saving information?

I thank Dr. Livesley for his review. He claims that I cited selectively from the literature and oversimplified issues, and that my interpretation of the results and the conclusions are not supported by the data. In this reply, I demonstrate that these charges are incorrect.

Livesley states that “the preponderance of studies show that sexual exposure is by far the most common mode of HIV transmission” and criticizes me for not citing three articles that he thinks support this view. However, there is no solid empirical evidence that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa, because studies with designs rigorous enough to determine modes of transmission have not yet been conducted. In the last paragraph of the current article, I wrote “to determine the modes of transmission of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa with confidence, researchers must assess blood and sexual exposures comprehensively in incident HIV cases and controls, trace their contacts corresponding to such exposures, and sequence the DNA in infected persons’ HIV isolates56 57 58.” My colleagues and I have published this plea dozens of times in the last nine years, and no other researchers have attempted to conduct the necessary research. Simply stating that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of transmission, or wishing it to be the case, does not make it so; rather, in science, strong empirical evidence must be presented to support a claim. My colleagues and I carried out a study in Calabar, Nigeria in which we assessed blood and sexual exposures fairly comprehensively in incident HIV cases and controls (Peters et al., 2009). We found that diverse blood exposures were associated with incident HIV infection. To my knowledge, no epidemiologic study of HIV infection before or since has matched or surpassed the strength of the research design of the Calabar study. Consequently, little can be concluded about the dominant modes of HIV transmission in Africa.

Livesley cites Gisselquist D et al. (2004), Hauri et al. (2004), and White et al. (2007) as sources to support the hypothesis that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. These citations that do not provide support for this hypothesis. Gisselquist et al. assessed a small set of risk factors (and only one blood exposure, receipt of injections) in relation to incident HIV infection in Rwanda. As I have noted, it is not possible to determine modes of transmission with such a design, especially when blood exposures were so incompletely assessed. Hauri et al. and White et al. reported results from modeling exercises on the share of HIV infections that may be due to unhygienic medical injections (just one of many blood exposures encountered by Africans). I and others disagree with many of the assumptions and parameter estimates used and emphasized in their simulations (because they are at odds with empirical data). Their models also lack several key risk components of unhygienic injection practices. I refrain from a detailed technical critique of these studies here. Crucially, neither modeling exercise produced an estimate of the share of HIV transmission due to vaginal sex. Furthermore, modelers have not been able to simulate HIV epidemics that resemble African epidemics with parameter estimates derived from empirical data on Africans’ vaginal sex behavior (Brewer et al., 2007).

Livesley faults me for citing my prior article that showed a strong inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV prevalence at the national level in sub-Saharan Africa (Brewer, 2011). It is unclear why this is problematic, as the result is robust, and consistent with individual-level results and historical prevention campaign experience. Livesley notes that I did not discuss other possibilities for national variation in HIV prevalence. Such variation is not the focus of my current article; instead, I focused on knowledge of HIV transmission risks in Mozambique. Nonetheless, it is worth evaluating the two sources Livesley cites, both based on the Four Cities Study, for other explanations of variation in HIV prevalence across Africa. The Four Cities Study did not involve assessing participants’ blood exposures. Perhaps even more importantly, the results from the Four Cities Study showed that putative sexual risk factors (such as sex partner concurrency and other high risk sexual behaviors) were inversely associated (in the case of concurrency) or not associated with HIV prevalence in the four cities (Auvert et al., 2001; Lagarde et al. 2001; Rothenberg et al., 2002).

In my F1000Research article, I stated that there is a “lack of association between condom use in vaginal sex and incident HIV infection14 52 53″ (p. 5) and cited three articles on studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (the only three I was aware of at the time that reported on the association or lack thereof). These three articles showed inconsistent results (Feldblum et al., 2010: positive association; Wawer et al., 2005: no apparent association; Allen et al., 2003: inverse association), which I summarized as a lack of association. Livesley cites Weller and Davis-Beaty 2007 for the hypothesis that condoms protect against HIV transmission during vaginal sex. However, Weller and Davis-Beaty’s summary included studies from regions outside of Africa, did not account for confounding of condom use with other risk factors (such as common blood exposures in Africa), and did not include Feldblum et al. and Wawer et al. results. About half of the studies in Weller and Davis-Beaty’s summary were based on condom use measures that applied to anal sex as well as vaginal sex. Consequently, Weller et al. results cannot be used as an estimate of the protective effect of condom use during vaginal sex in sub-Saharan Africa or elsewhere. The protective effect of condom use during anal sex, though, has been well-established in other research.

Livesley questions my description of adjusted odds ratios of 0.81 to 0.95 for the association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and prevalent HIV infection as indicating an inverse relationship. By definition, odds ratios under 1.0 reflect inverse or negative relationships. The adjusted odds ratios were in the inverse direction for two different measures of knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and for both women and men. The confidence intervals for these odds ratios do include 1.0. However, the consistency of the association across measures and sample subgroups, and similarity in magnitude of the association to similar associations in neighboring and nearby countries mean that it is warranted to describe the relationship as inverse.

Livesley criticizes me for characterizing the adjusted odds ratios between knowledge of anal sex and HIV infection in women (AOR = 1.18) and knowledge of vaginal sex and HIV infection in men (AOR = 1.85) as “meaningfully positive.” In this context, I intended “meaningfully positive” to refer to associations that were mild to moderate in magnitude. Livesley also correctly noted that “the OR for men’s understanding of vaginal sex is close to being statistically significant.” This result means that Mozambican men who believed that HIV can be transmitted through vaginal sex without a condom were twice as likely to be infected with HIV as men who did not believe vaginal sex was a risk.

Livesley argues that the results in my article do not suggest that HIV education programs in sub-Saharan Africa should include a focus on blood-borne risks and anal sex. The results show that Mozambican adults who were unaware of blood-borne transmission were at increased risk for HIV infection, and that children of uninfected mothers who were unaware of blood-borne transmission were at much increased risk for HIV infection. Almost half of Mozambican adults did not know anal sex was an HIV transmission risk. In my opinion, these findings justify including a focus on blood-borne risks and anal sex in HIV education efforts.

Livesley further wonders how such topics could be incorporated in HIV prevention and education programming. Successful examples abound. As I discussed in my 2011 article, there is a “heavy emphasis on avoiding blood-borne risks in HIV education programs for primary school students in rich countries [69,70], travelers to poor (especially African) countries [71-73], and employees of the United Nations working in poor countries [74,75]” (p. 194). Most of these educational efforts have been standard and ongoing for over two decades. The risk of anal sex has also been continuously emphasized in HIV prevention and education programs in rich countries. Moreover, during the last 30 years, there have been many instances of HIV education campaigns highlighting blood-borne risks in west and central Africa (Brewer, 2011), although it is uncertain how widespread and consistent these efforts have been. These examples show that people can be more fully informed of the range of HIV risks without additional program cost.

The fundamental question is moral and ethical. On what grounds can HIV prevention and education programs in Africa, funded by taxpayers and sponsored by international agencies, foreign aid agencies, and national governments, continue to deprive people of highly relevant, life-saving information?
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

207

Reviewer Report 17 Jul 2012

Suzanne Gaudreault, USAID Health Care Improvement Project, University Research Co., LLC, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.50.r50

This is an interesting article, and I think it makes a positive contribution to the evidence base. However, I think the introduction understates the level of knowledge that people with HIV are likely to have about HIV (see below).

The discussion also neglects to consider the fact that due to stigmatization of this disease, many people with HIV do not admit that they have it or even that they have been tested for it. Unfortunately, this is hard to study or measure, but in practice, I have seen that it is especially true for men, even after they have known about their disease and have been on ART for a long time. In this study people who admitted to having been tested before were rightfully excluded from the analysis, but the discussion should acknowledge that stigma and other factors may mean that many people who actually knew about their status already (but lied about it) could still have been included in the data, seriously confounding the analysis.

In countries like Mozambique which receive significant foreign assistance to deal with the HIV epidemic (PEPFAR, Global Fund or other) – people with HIV who are aware of their status typically receive much more intensive education about HIV (through treatment programs and social programs for people with HIV) than the general public. The content of this education is globally standardized enough that it typically places considerable emphasis on the modes of transmission of HIV. Also, as for people with any health condition, people with HIV are inherently more likely to pay attention to any information on HIV that they come across (public awareness campaigns, etc.).

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 19 Jul 2012

Devon Brewer, Interdisciplinary Scientific Research, USA

19 Jul 2012

Author Response

Thank you very much, Dr. Gaudreault, for your review.

I agree that it is possible that some previously tested, infected persons might deny having tested previously and that they might have ... Continue reading Thank you very much, Dr. Gaudreault, for your review.

I agree that it is possible that some previously tested, infected persons might deny having tested previously and that they might have learned about blood exposures and anal sex as routes of transmission during HIV testing or clinical care. However, several lines of evidence suggest that such “knowledge through denied prior testing” is rare, and that even if this bias were present, it cannot account for the association between knowledge and HIV infection.

In Class’ (2012) research, adult HIV patients and parents and other caretakers of HIV infected children in Maputo, Mozambique, responded to open-ended questions about routes of HIV transmission. Fifty-five percent (12/22) of the adult HIV patients and 62% (16/26) of parents and caretakers were aware of blood-borne modes of HIV transmission. All respondents aware of blood-borne HIV transmission reported learning of these modes of transmission exclusively from unofficial, non-clinical, non-public health sources, such as “on the street.” Class’ (2012) respondents reported that none of their clinical providers ever discussed blood-borne transmission as a potential explanation for how infection occurred.

It is unclear the extent to which blood-borne HIV risks are covered in HIV counseling in southern Africa. As I demonstrated in this article and a prior report (reference 18), public HIV education campaigns in southern Africa have not in the past and do not currently address blood-borne HIV risks, even though they are often funded and guided by large international aid agencies such as USAID, the Global Fund, PEPFAR, DFID, and UNAIDS. Therefore, it is reasonable to question how well such risks are addressed in these countries’ HIV counseling programs.

Any potential bias in reporting prior HIV testing by infected persons cannot account for the strong national-level inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV infection (see reference 18). Countries in which many people are aware of such risks have much lower HIV prevalences than countries in which few people are aware of these risks.

Also, potential bias in reporting prior HIV testing by infected persons is irrelevant to the association between uninfected mothers’ knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV infection in their children (reported in the current article). Children of uninfected mothers who know about these risks are much less likely to be infected than children of uninfected mothers who do not know about these risks.

Furthermore, even if infected persons who denied prior HIV testing were included in the data I analyzed, their inclusion could not generate the observed inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne risks and HIV infection. If they had learned about blood-borne risks during testing or clinical care, and reported such awareness in the Mozambique AIS, their responses would produce a tendency toward a positive, rather than inverse, association between knowledge of blood-borne risks and HIV infection.

Reference

Class D. The socio-political economy of antiretroviral treatment as HIV prevention . Doctoral dissertation, University of Trento, 2012. Available at http://eprints-phd.biblio.unitn.it/803/.
Thank you very much, Dr. Gaudreault, for your review.

I agree that it is possible that some previously tested, infected persons might deny having tested previously and that they might have learned about blood exposures and anal sex as routes of transmission during HIV testing or clinical care. However, several lines of evidence suggest that such “knowledge through denied prior testing” is rare, and that even if this bias were present, it cannot account for the association between knowledge and HIV infection.

In Class’ (2012) research, adult HIV patients and parents and other caretakers of HIV infected children in Maputo, Mozambique, responded to open-ended questions about routes of HIV transmission. Fifty-five percent (12/22) of the adult HIV patients and 62% (16/26) of parents and caretakers were aware of blood-borne modes of HIV transmission. All respondents aware of blood-borne HIV transmission reported learning of these modes of transmission exclusively from unofficial, non-clinical, non-public health sources, such as “on the street.” Class’ (2012) respondents reported that none of their clinical providers ever discussed blood-borne transmission as a potential explanation for how infection occurred.

It is unclear the extent to which blood-borne HIV risks are covered in HIV counseling in southern Africa. As I demonstrated in this article and a prior report (reference 18), public HIV education campaigns in southern Africa have not in the past and do not currently address blood-borne HIV risks, even though they are often funded and guided by large international aid agencies such as USAID, the Global Fund, PEPFAR, DFID, and UNAIDS. Therefore, it is reasonable to question how well such risks are addressed in these countries’ HIV counseling programs.

Any potential bias in reporting prior HIV testing by infected persons cannot account for the strong national-level inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV infection (see reference 18). Countries in which many people are aware of such risks have much lower HIV prevalences than countries in which few people are aware of these risks.

Also, potential bias in reporting prior HIV testing by infected persons is irrelevant to the association between uninfected mothers’ knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV infection in their children (reported in the current article). Children of uninfected mothers who know about these risks are much less likely to be infected than children of uninfected mothers who do not know about these risks.

Furthermore, even if infected persons who denied prior HIV testing were included in the data I analyzed, their inclusion could not generate the observed inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne risks and HIV infection. If they had learned about blood-borne risks during testing or clinical care, and reported such awareness in the Mozambique AIS, their responses would produce a tendency toward a positive, rather than inverse, association between knowledge of blood-borne risks and HIV infection.

Reference

Class D. The socio-political economy of antiretroviral treatment as HIV prevention . Doctoral dissertation, University of Trento, 2012. Available at http://eprints-phd.biblio.unitn.it/803/.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 19 Jul 2012

Devon Brewer, Interdisciplinary Scientific Research, USA

19 Jul 2012

Author Response

Thank you very much, Dr. Gaudreault, for your review.

I agree that it is possible that some previously tested, infected persons might deny having tested previously and that they might have ... Continue reading Thank you very much, Dr. Gaudreault, for your review.

I agree that it is possible that some previously tested, infected persons might deny having tested previously and that they might have learned about blood exposures and anal sex as routes of transmission during HIV testing or clinical care. However, several lines of evidence suggest that such “knowledge through denied prior testing” is rare, and that even if this bias were present, it cannot account for the association between knowledge and HIV infection.

In Class’ (2012) research, adult HIV patients and parents and other caretakers of HIV infected children in Maputo, Mozambique, responded to open-ended questions about routes of HIV transmission. Fifty-five percent (12/22) of the adult HIV patients and 62% (16/26) of parents and caretakers were aware of blood-borne modes of HIV transmission. All respondents aware of blood-borne HIV transmission reported learning of these modes of transmission exclusively from unofficial, non-clinical, non-public health sources, such as “on the street.” Class’ (2012) respondents reported that none of their clinical providers ever discussed blood-borne transmission as a potential explanation for how infection occurred.

It is unclear the extent to which blood-borne HIV risks are covered in HIV counseling in southern Africa. As I demonstrated in this article and a prior report (reference 18), public HIV education campaigns in southern Africa have not in the past and do not currently address blood-borne HIV risks, even though they are often funded and guided by large international aid agencies such as USAID, the Global Fund, PEPFAR, DFID, and UNAIDS. Therefore, it is reasonable to question how well such risks are addressed in these countries’ HIV counseling programs.

Any potential bias in reporting prior HIV testing by infected persons cannot account for the strong national-level inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV infection (see reference 18). Countries in which many people are aware of such risks have much lower HIV prevalences than countries in which few people are aware of these risks.

Also, potential bias in reporting prior HIV testing by infected persons is irrelevant to the association between uninfected mothers’ knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV infection in their children (reported in the current article). Children of uninfected mothers who know about these risks are much less likely to be infected than children of uninfected mothers who do not know about these risks.

Furthermore, even if infected persons who denied prior HIV testing were included in the data I analyzed, their inclusion could not generate the observed inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne risks and HIV infection. If they had learned about blood-borne risks during testing or clinical care, and reported such awareness in the Mozambique AIS, their responses would produce a tendency toward a positive, rather than inverse, association between knowledge of blood-borne risks and HIV infection.

Reference

Class D. The socio-political economy of antiretroviral treatment as HIV prevention . Doctoral dissertation, University of Trento, 2012. Available at http://eprints-phd.biblio.unitn.it/803/.
Thank you very much, Dr. Gaudreault, for your review.

I agree that it is possible that some previously tested, infected persons might deny having tested previously and that they might have learned about blood exposures and anal sex as routes of transmission during HIV testing or clinical care. However, several lines of evidence suggest that such “knowledge through denied prior testing” is rare, and that even if this bias were present, it cannot account for the association between knowledge and HIV infection.

In Class’ (2012) research, adult HIV patients and parents and other caretakers of HIV infected children in Maputo, Mozambique, responded to open-ended questions about routes of HIV transmission. Fifty-five percent (12/22) of the adult HIV patients and 62% (16/26) of parents and caretakers were aware of blood-borne modes of HIV transmission. All respondents aware of blood-borne HIV transmission reported learning of these modes of transmission exclusively from unofficial, non-clinical, non-public health sources, such as “on the street.” Class’ (2012) respondents reported that none of their clinical providers ever discussed blood-borne transmission as a potential explanation for how infection occurred.

It is unclear the extent to which blood-borne HIV risks are covered in HIV counseling in southern Africa. As I demonstrated in this article and a prior report (reference 18), public HIV education campaigns in southern Africa have not in the past and do not currently address blood-borne HIV risks, even though they are often funded and guided by large international aid agencies such as USAID, the Global Fund, PEPFAR, DFID, and UNAIDS. Therefore, it is reasonable to question how well such risks are addressed in these countries’ HIV counseling programs.

Any potential bias in reporting prior HIV testing by infected persons cannot account for the strong national-level inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV infection (see reference 18). Countries in which many people are aware of such risks have much lower HIV prevalences than countries in which few people are aware of these risks.

Also, potential bias in reporting prior HIV testing by infected persons is irrelevant to the association between uninfected mothers’ knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV infection in their children (reported in the current article). Children of uninfected mothers who know about these risks are much less likely to be infected than children of uninfected mothers who do not know about these risks.

Furthermore, even if infected persons who denied prior HIV testing were included in the data I analyzed, their inclusion could not generate the observed inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne risks and HIV infection. If they had learned about blood-borne risks during testing or clinical care, and reported such awareness in the Mozambique AIS, their responses would produce a tendency toward a positive, rather than inverse, association between knowledge of blood-borne risks and HIV infection.

Reference

Class D. The socio-political economy of antiretroviral treatment as HIV prevention . Doctoral dissertation, University of Trento, 2012. Available at http://eprints-phd.biblio.unitn.it/803/.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 13 Jul 2012

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 1 13 Jul 12	read	read	read

Suzanne Gaudreault, University Research Co., LLC, Bethesda, USA
Nigel Livesley, University Research Co., LLC, Bethesda, USA
Carlos Morel, Ministry of Health, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

333 Views

02 Aug 2012 | for Version 1

Carlos Morel, FIOCRUZ/CDTS, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Ministry of Health, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

333 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

This is an interesting article. However, I am sure there are some sections where readers would like to have some more information e.g. how the adjustments for demographic and sexual behaviors were performed.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

271 Views

27 Jul 2012 | for Version 1

Nigel Livesley, USAID East Africa, University Research Co., LLC, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA

271 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

The paper also implies that condoms are not protective against HIV. Again this is not what the preponderance of studies shows:

Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission.

Is the title appropriate for the content of the article? Yes
Is the abstract a suitable summary of the article? No (see above)
Is the article well constructed and clear? No (see above)
Is there adequate analysis, including information on how the data were analyzed (e.g. programs, code, stats etc.)? There is no information on how the author decided that some results were important
Are the conclusions sensible and balanced? No (see above).
Have any potential biases or competing interests been disclosed? Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

30 Jul 2012

Devon Brewer, Interdisciplinary Scientific Research, USA

I thank Dr. Livesley for his review. He claims that I cited selectively from the literature and oversimplified issues, and that my interpretation of the results and the conclusions are not supported by the data. In this reply, I demonstrate that these charges are incorrect.

Livesley states that “the preponderance of studies show that sexual exposure is by far the most common mode of HIV transmission” and criticizes me for not citing three articles that he thinks support this view. However, there is no solid empirical evidence that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa, because studies with designs rigorous enough to determine modes of transmission have not yet been conducted. In the last paragraph of the current article, I wrote “to determine the modes of transmission of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa with confidence, researchers must assess blood and sexual exposures comprehensively in incident HIV cases and controls, trace their contacts corresponding to such exposures, and sequence the DNA in infected persons’ HIV isolates56 57 58.” My colleagues and I have published this plea dozens of times in the last nine years, and no other researchers have attempted to conduct the necessary research. Simply stating that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of transmission, or wishing it to be the case, does not make it so; rather, in science, strong empirical evidence must be presented to support a claim. My colleagues and I carried out a study in Calabar, Nigeria in which we assessed blood and sexual exposures fairly comprehensively in incident HIV cases and controls (Peters et al., 2009). We found that diverse blood exposures were associated with incident HIV infection. To my knowledge, no epidemiologic study of HIV infection before or since has matched or surpassed the strength of the research design of the Calabar study. Consequently, little can be concluded about the dominant modes of HIV transmission in Africa.

Livesley cites Gisselquist D et al. (2004), Hauri et al. (2004), and White et al. (2007) as sources to support the hypothesis that vaginal sex is the dominant mode of HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. These citations that do not provide support for this hypothesis. Gisselquist et al. assessed a small set of risk factors (and only one blood exposure, receipt of injections) in relation to incident HIV infection in Rwanda. As I have noted, it is not possible to determine modes of transmission with such a design, especially when blood exposures were so incompletely assessed. Hauri et al. and White et al. reported results from modeling exercises on the share of HIV infections that may be due to unhygienic medical injections (just one of many blood exposures encountered by Africans). I and others disagree with many of the assumptions and parameter estimates used and emphasized in their simulations (because they are at odds with empirical data). Their models also lack several key risk components of unhygienic injection practices. I refrain from a detailed technical critique of these studies here. Crucially, neither modeling exercise produced an estimate of the share of HIV transmission due to vaginal sex. Furthermore, modelers have not been able to simulate HIV epidemics that resemble African epidemics with parameter estimates derived from empirical data on Africans’ vaginal sex behavior (Brewer et al., 2007).

Livesley faults me for citing my prior article that showed a strong inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV prevalence at the national level in sub-Saharan Africa (Brewer, 2011). It is unclear why this is problematic, as the result is robust, and consistent with individual-level results and historical prevention campaign experience. Livesley notes that I did not discuss other possibilities for national variation in HIV prevalence. Such variation is not the focus of my current article; instead, I focused on knowledge of HIV transmission risks in Mozambique. Nonetheless, it is worth evaluating the two sources Livesley cites, both based on the Four Cities Study, for other explanations of variation in HIV prevalence across Africa. The Four Cities Study did not involve assessing participants’ blood exposures. Perhaps even more importantly, the results from the Four Cities Study showed that putative sexual risk factors (such as sex partner concurrency and other high risk sexual behaviors) were inversely associated (in the case of concurrency) or not associated with HIV prevalence in the four cities (Auvert et al., 2001; Lagarde et al. 2001; Rothenberg et al., 2002).

In my F1000Research article, I stated that there is a “lack of association between condom use in vaginal sex and incident HIV infection14 52 53″ (p. 5) and cited three articles on studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (the only three I was aware of at the time that reported on the association or lack thereof). These three articles showed inconsistent results (Feldblum et al., 2010: positive association; Wawer et al., 2005: no apparent association; Allen et al., 2003: inverse association), which I summarized as a lack of association. Livesley cites Weller and Davis-Beaty 2007 for the hypothesis that condoms protect against HIV transmission during vaginal sex. However, Weller and Davis-Beaty’s summary included studies from regions outside of Africa, did not account for confounding of condom use with other risk factors (such as common blood exposures in Africa), and did not include Feldblum et al. and Wawer et al. results. About half of the studies in Weller and Davis-Beaty’s summary were based on condom use measures that applied to anal sex as well as vaginal sex. Consequently, Weller et al. results cannot be used as an estimate of the protective effect of condom use during vaginal sex in sub-Saharan Africa or elsewhere. The protective effect of condom use during anal sex, though, has been well-established in other research.

Livesley questions my description of adjusted odds ratios of 0.81 to 0.95 for the association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and prevalent HIV infection as indicating an inverse relationship. By definition, odds ratios under 1.0 reflect inverse or negative relationships. The adjusted odds ratios were in the inverse direction for two different measures of knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and for both women and men. The confidence intervals for these odds ratios do include 1.0. However, the consistency of the association across measures and sample subgroups, and similarity in magnitude of the association to similar associations in neighboring and nearby countries mean that it is warranted to describe the relationship as inverse.

Livesley criticizes me for characterizing the adjusted odds ratios between knowledge of anal sex and HIV infection in women (AOR = 1.18) and knowledge of vaginal sex and HIV infection in men (AOR = 1.85) as “meaningfully positive.” In this context, I intended “meaningfully positive” to refer to associations that were mild to moderate in magnitude. Livesley also correctly noted that “the OR for men’s understanding of vaginal sex is close to being statistically significant.” This result means that Mozambican men who believed that HIV can be transmitted through vaginal sex without a condom were twice as likely to be infected with HIV as men who did not believe vaginal sex was a risk.

Livesley argues that the results in my article do not suggest that HIV education programs in sub-Saharan Africa should include a focus on blood-borne risks and anal sex. The results show that Mozambican adults who were unaware of blood-borne transmission were at increased risk for HIV infection, and that children of uninfected mothers who were unaware of blood-borne transmission were at much increased risk for HIV infection. Almost half of Mozambican adults did not know anal sex was an HIV transmission risk. In my opinion, these findings justify including a focus on blood-borne risks and anal sex in HIV education efforts.

Livesley further wonders how such topics could be incorporated in HIV prevention and education programming. Successful examples abound. As I discussed in my 2011 article, there is a “heavy emphasis on avoiding blood-borne risks in HIV education programs for primary school students in rich countries [69,70], travelers to poor (especially African) countries [71-73], and employees of the United Nations working in poor countries [74,75]” (p. 194). Most of these educational efforts have been standard and ongoing for over two decades. The risk of anal sex has also been continuously emphasized in HIV prevention and education programs in rich countries. Moreover, during the last 30 years, there have been many instances of HIV education campaigns highlighting blood-borne risks in west and central Africa (Brewer, 2011), although it is uncertain how widespread and consistent these efforts have been. These examples show that people can be more fully informed of the range of HIV risks without additional program cost.

The fundamental question is moral and ethical. On what grounds can HIV prevention and education programs in Africa, funded by taxpayers and sponsored by international agencies, foreign aid agencies, and national governments, continue to deprive people of highly relevant, life-saving information?

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

207 Views

17 Jul 2012 | for Version 1

Suzanne Gaudreault, USAID Health Care Improvement Project, University Research Co., LLC, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA

207 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

19 Jul 2012

Devon Brewer, Interdisciplinary Scientific Research, USA

Thank you very much, Dr. Gaudreault, for your review.

I agree that it is possible that some previously tested, infected persons might deny having tested previously and that they might have learned about blood exposures and anal sex as routes of transmission during HIV testing or clinical care. However, several lines of evidence suggest that such “knowledge through denied prior testing” is rare, and that even if this bias were present, it cannot account for the association between knowledge and HIV infection.

In Class’ (2012) research, adult HIV patients and parents and other caretakers of HIV infected children in Maputo, Mozambique, responded to open-ended questions about routes of HIV transmission. Fifty-five percent (12/22) of the adult HIV patients and 62% (16/26) of parents and caretakers were aware of blood-borne modes of HIV transmission. All respondents aware of blood-borne HIV transmission reported learning of these modes of transmission exclusively from unofficial, non-clinical, non-public health sources, such as “on the street.” Class’ (2012) respondents reported that none of their clinical providers ever discussed blood-borne transmission as a potential explanation for how infection occurred.

It is unclear the extent to which blood-borne HIV risks are covered in HIV counseling in southern Africa. As I demonstrated in this article and a prior report (reference 18), public HIV education campaigns in southern Africa have not in the past and do not currently address blood-borne HIV risks, even though they are often funded and guided by large international aid agencies such as USAID, the Global Fund, PEPFAR, DFID, and UNAIDS. Therefore, it is reasonable to question how well such risks are addressed in these countries’ HIV counseling programs.

Any potential bias in reporting prior HIV testing by infected persons cannot account for the strong national-level inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV infection (see reference 18). Countries in which many people are aware of such risks have much lower HIV prevalences than countries in which few people are aware of these risks.

Also, potential bias in reporting prior HIV testing by infected persons is irrelevant to the association between uninfected mothers’ knowledge of blood-borne HIV risks and HIV infection in their children (reported in the current article). Children of uninfected mothers who know about these risks are much less likely to be infected than children of uninfected mothers who do not know about these risks.

Furthermore, even if infected persons who denied prior HIV testing were included in the data I analyzed, their inclusion could not generate the observed inverse association between knowledge of blood-borne risks and HIV infection. If they had learned about blood-borne risks during testing or clinical care, and reported such awareness in the Mozambique AIS, their responses would produce a tendency toward a positive, rather than inverse, association between knowledge of blood-borne risks and HIV infection.

Reference

Class D. The socio-political economy of antiretroviral treatment as HIV prevention . Doctoral dissertation, University of Trento, 2012. Available at http://eprints-phd.biblio.unitn.it/803/.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. St Lawrence JS, Klaskala W, Kankasa C, et al.: Factors associated with HIV prevalence in a pre-partum cohort of Zambian women. Int J STD AIDS. 2006; 17(9): 607–613. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Deuchert E: Maternal health care and the spread of AIDS in Burkina Faso and Cameroon. World Health Pop. 2007; 9(3): 55–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[3] 3. Deuchert E, Brody S: The role of health care in the spread of HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from Kenya. Int J STD AIDS. 2006; 17(11): 749–752. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Brewer DD, Potterat JJ, Roberts JM Jr, et al.: Male and female circumcision associated with prevalent HIV infection in virgins and adolescents in Kenya, Lesotho, and Tanzania. Ann Epidemiol. 2007; 17(3): 217–226. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Gisselquist D: Points to consider: Responses to HIV/AIDS in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. Adonis and Abbey Publishers Ltd, London; 2007. Reference Source

[6] 6. Peters EJ, Brewer DD, Udonwa NE, et al.: Diverse blood exposures associated with incident HIV infection in Calabar, Nigeria. Int J STD AIDS. 2009; 20(12): 846–851. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Okinyi M, Brewer DD, Potterat JJ, et al.: Horizontally acquired HIV infection in Kenyan and Swazi children. Int J STD AIDS. 2009; 20(12): 852–857. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Vaz P, Pedro A, Le Bozec S, et al.: Nonvertical, nonsexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010; 29(3): 271–274. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Brewer DD: Scarification and male circumcision associated with HIV infection in Mozambican children and youth. WebmedCentral EPIDEMIOLOGY 2011, 2(9): WMC002206. Reference Source

[10] 10. Lane T, Pettifor A, Pascoe S, et al.: Heterosexual anal intercourse increases risk of HIV infection among young South African men. AIDS. 2006; 20(1): 123–125. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Mlotshwa M, Abdool Karim Q, Frohlich J, et al.: Risk factors for HIV infection in young women in rural South Africa: implications for HIV prevention trials. Abstract MOPE0276, 17th International AIDS Conference, Mexico City, August, 2008. Reference Source

[12] 12. Grijsen ML, Graham SM, Mwangome M, et al.: Screening for genital and anorectal sexually transmitted infections in HIV prevention trials in Africa. Sex Transm Infect. 2008; 84(5): 364–370. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Adoga MP, Banwat EB, Forbi JC, et al.: Human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus: sero-prevalence, co-infection and risk factors among prison inmates in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2009; 3(7): 539–547. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Feldblum PJ, Lie C, Weaver MA, et al.: Baseline factors associated with incident HIV and STI in four microbicide trials. Sex Transm Dis. 2010; 37(10): 594–601. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Kalichman SC, Simbayi LC, Cain D, et al.: Heterosexual anal intercourse among community and clinical settings in Cape Town, South Africa. Sex Transm Infect. 2009; 85(6): 411–415. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Mwakagile D, Mmari E, Makwaya C, et al.: Sexual behaviour among youths at high risk for HIV-1 infection in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Sex Transm Infect. 2001; 77(4): 255–259. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Priddy FH, Wakasiaka S, Hoang TD, et al.: Anal sex, vaginal practices, and HIV incidence in female sex workers in urban Kenya: implications for the development of intravaginal HIV prevention methods. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2011; 27(10): 1067–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[18] 18. Brewer DD: Knowledge of blood-borne transmission risk is inversely associated with HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa. J Infect Dev Ctries. 2011; 5(3): 182–198. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Ramjee G, Gouws E, Andrews A, et al.: The acceptability of a vaginal microbicide among South African men. Int Fam Planning Perspect. 2001; 27(4): 164–170. Reference Source

[20] 20. Brody S, Potterat JJ: Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa. Int J STD AIDS. 2003; 14(7): 431–436. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Ferguson A, Morris C: Assessing the role of anal intercourse in the epidemiology of AIDS in Africa. Int J STD AIDS. 2003; 14(12): 856. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Simbayi LC, Kalichman SC, Jooste S, et al.: Risk factors for HIV-AIDS among youth in Cape Town, South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2005; 9(1): 53–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Schwandt M, Morris C, Ferguson A, et al.: Anal and dry sex in commercial sex work, and relation to risk for sexually transmitted infections and HIV in Meru, Kenya. Sex Transm Infect. 2006; 82(5): 392–396. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[24] 24. Genberg BL, Kulich M, Kawichai S, et al.: HIV risk behaviors in sub-Saharan Africa and Northern Thailand: baseline behavioral data from Project Accept. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2008; 49(3): 309–319. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] 25. Morhason-Bello IO, Oladokun A, Enakpene CA, et al.: Sexual behaviour of in-school adolescents in Ibadan, South-West Nigeria. Afr J Reprod Health. 2008; 12(2): 89–97. PubMed Abstract

[26] 26. DeJanes W: Knowledge, substance use, and gender differences associated with HIV infection risk among youth in a South African township. Med Sociol Online. 2009; 4(2): 3–25. Reference Source

[27] 27. Kazaura MR, Masatu MC: Sexual practices among unmarried adolescents in Tanzania. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9: 373. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[28] 28. Ola TM, Oludare BA: Sexual practices and knowledge about HIV/AIDS among Nigerian secondary school students. Int J Health Res. 2008; 1: 197–205. Reference Source

[29] 29. Stadler JJ, Delany S, Mntambo M, et al.: Sexual coercion and sexual desire: ambivalent meanings of heterosexual anal sex in Soweto, South Africa. AIDS Care. 2007; 19(10): 1189–1193. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Karim SS, Ramjee G: Anal sex and HIV transmission in women. Am J Public Health. 1998; 88(8): 1265–1266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[31] 31. Instituto Nacional de Saúde (INS), Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE), ICF Macro:Inquérito Nacional de Prevalência, Riscos Comportamentais e Informação sobre o HIV e SIDA em Moçambique 2009. INS, INE, and ICF Macro, Calverton, Maryland, USA 2010. Reference Source

[32] 32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:Antenatal pre-test session flipchart.2011.

[33] 33. Matambo R, Dauya E, Mutswanga J, et al.: Voluntary counseling and testing by nurse counselors: what is the role of routine repeated testing after a negative result? Clin Infect Dis. 2006; 42(4): 569–571. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE), Ministério da Saúde (MS), ORC Macro: Moçambique Inquérito Demográfico e de Saúde 2003. INE, MS, and ORC Macro, Calverton, MD, USA 2005.

[35] 35. Action Aid Mozambique, Save the Children UK, UNICEF: Stepping Stones Pilot Program Evaluation: Zambezia 19991999. Reference Source

[36] 36. Stepping Stones Evaluation - District of Mandimba.2002. Reference Source

[37] 37. Department of Health (Republic of South Africa), South African Medical Research Council: South Africa Demographic and Health Survey 1998.2002. Reference Source

[38] 38. Northern Cape Department of Health, Academy for Educational Development/Capable Partners Programme South Africa: A rapid assessment of the extent to which knowledge, attitude and practice of maternal nutrition, infant, and young child feeding in the context of PMTCT of HIV are integrated in the community.2008.

[39] 39. Tuli K: Ndwedwe Child Survival Project KwaZulu Natal, South Africa.2006. Reference Source

[40] 40. Versteeg M, Couper I, Mbiza E, et al.: Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding HIV and AIDS in the Segwaelane and Damonsville communities. Madibeng Centre for Research, Brits, South Africa; 2005. Reference Source

[41] 41. Crush J, Raimundo I, Simelane H, et al.: Migration-induced HIV and AIDS in rural Mozambique and Swaziland. Idasa, Cape Town; 2010. Reference Source

[42] 42. Pettifor AE, Rees HV, Steffenson A, et al.: HIV and sexual behaviour among young South Africans: a national survey of 15-24 year olds. Reproductive Health Research Unit, University of the Witwatersrand 2004. Reference Source

[43] 43. Banana C: An investigation into the risk behaviour regarding HIV transmission among youth in Bulawayo. PhD thesis. University of South Africa 2007. Reference Source

[44] 44. Ounga T, Okinyi M, Onyuro S, et al.: Knowledge of HIV survival on skin-piercing instruments among young adults in Nyanza Province, Kenya. Int J STD AIDS. 2009; 20(2): 119–122. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[45] 45. Green EC, Zokwe B, Dupree JD: The experience of an AIDS prevention program focused on South African traditional healers. Soc Sci Med. 1995; 40(4): 503–515. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. Swarns RL: Mozambique enlists healers in AIDS prevention. New York Times, December 6, 1999. Reference Source

[47] 47. Mozambique News Agency: HIV/AIDS – new training manual for traditional healers. January 9, 2011. Reference Source

[48] 48. Agência de Informação de Moçambique: HIV/SIDA: em preparação manual de treino para "curandeiros". January 8, 2011. Reference Source

[49] 49. Associacao dos Barbeiros, Mozambique Ministerio de Saude, Central de Educacao em Saude Publica: O barbeiro e o SIDA, por cada corte uma lamina nova, proteja a sua vida e a dos seus clientes [poster];1992.

[50] 50. Hainsworth G, Zilhão I, Badiani R, et al.: From inception to large scale: the Geração Biz Programme in Mozambique. World Health Organization, Geneva 2009. Reference Source

[51] 51. Hattori MK, Richter K, Greene J, et al.: Trust, caution, and condom use with regular partners: an evaluation of the trusted partner campaign targeting youth in four countries. Soc Marketing Q. 2010; 16(2): 18–48. Reference Source

[52] 52. Allen S, Meinzen-Derr J, Kautzman M, et al.: Sexual behavior of HIV discordant couples after HIV counseling and testing. AIDS. 2003; 17(5): 733–740. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[53] 53. Wawer MJ, Gray RH, Sewankambo NK, et al.: Rates of HIV-1 transmission per coital act, by stage of HIV-1 infection, in Rakai, Uganda. J Infect Dis. 2005; 191(9): 1403–1409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[54] 54. Kingsley C, Peters B, Babaahmady K, et al.: Heterosexual and homosexual partners practising unprotected sex may develop allogeneic immunity and to a lesser extent tolerance. PLoS ONE. 2009; 4(11): e7938. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[55] 55. Peters B, Whittall T, Babaahmady K, et al.: Effect of heterosexual intercourse on mucosal alloimmunisation and resistance to HIV-1 infection. Lancet. 2004; 363(9408): 518–524. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[56] 56. Brewer DD, Rothenberg RB, Potterat JJ, et al.: HIV epidemiology in sub-Saharan Africa: rich in conjecture, poor in data. Int J STD AIDS. 2004; 15: 63–65. Publisher Full Text

[57] 57. Brody S, Potterat JJ: Establishing valid AIDS monitoring and research in countries with generalized epidemics. Int J STD AIDS. 2004; 15(1): 1–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[58] 58. Brewer DD, Hagan H, Sullivan DG, et al.: Social structural and behavioral underpinnings of hyperendemic Hepatitis C virus transmission in drug injectors. J Infect Dis. 2006; 194(6): 764–772. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[59] 59. Gisselquist D, Friedman E, Potterat JJ, et al.: Four policies to reduce HIV transmission through unsterile health care. Int J STD AIDS. 2003; 14(11): 717–722. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[60] 60. Correa M, Gisselquist D, Gore DH, et al.: Blood-borne HIV: risks and prevention. Orient Longman Private Limited, Chennai. 2008. Reference Source

[61] 61. Gisselquist D, Correa M: Don’t get stuck with HIV: how to protect yourself during health care and cosmetic procedures. 2011. Reference Source

Knowledge of specific HIV transmission modes in relation to HIV infection in Mozambique

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

2009 Mozambique AIDS Indicator Survey (AIS) data

2003 Mozambique Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data

Statistical analysis

Online search of HIV prevention education efforts focused on blood-borne risks

Results

Table 1. Knowledge of specific HIV transmission modes and relationship with prevalent HIV infection, Mozambique, 2009.

Table 2. Associations between measures of knowledge of HIV transmission modes and prevalent HIV infection, Mozambican women, 2009.

Table 3. Associations between measures of knowledge of HIV transmission modes and prevalent HIV infection, Mozambican men, 2009.

Discussion

Competing interests

Grant information

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated