International Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 28, Number 2, June 2002

 

A Quasi-Experimental Study to Assess the Impact of Four
Adolescent Sexual Health Interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa
TABLES

TABLE 1. Odds ratios indicating change between baseline and postintervention surveys in selected health beliefs among young women in intervention and comparison areas, and net effect of the intervention, four Sub-Saharan African countries
Health belief Cameroon Botswana South Africa Guinea
Intervention Comparison Net effect Intervention Comparison Net effect Intervention Comparison Net effect Intervention Comparison Net effect
Perceptions of risk
Sexual activity carries the risk of AIDS 0.87 0.77 None 1.18 0.88 None 1.02 4.02** Negative** 1.24 1.16 None
Sexual activity carries the risk of pregnancy 0.80 0.71* None 1.95** 1.07 Positive* 7.03** 0.45 Positive** 1.07 2.76** Negative**
Benefits of abstinence
Protects against unwanted pregnancy 5.26** 1.72** Positive** u u u 1.96* 0.58 Positive** u u u
Protects against AIDS u u u 1.53** 0.89 Positive* 2.28* 1.13 None 1.30* 1.31* None
Benefit of monogamy/fidelity
Protects against AIDS u u u 0.41** 0.19** None 1.44 1.11 None 1.13 1.07 None
Benefits of condom use
Protects against unwanted pregnancy 3.96** 1.31 Positive** 3.75** 1.75** Positive** 3.17** 2.11* None 2.26** 2.35** None
Protects against AIDS u u u 3.44** 0.75 Positive** 3.50** 0.95 Positive** 1.24 2.71** Negative**
Benefit of other contraceptive use
Protects against pregnancy 4.48** 1.95** Positive** u u u 1.95** 0.52** Positive** 1.19 1.84** None
Barriers to abstinence
Most people my age have sex 0.85 0.58** None u u u u u u u u u
Sex gives status u u u 1.19 1.62 None u u u u u u
Opposition to premarital sex 1.05 1.06 None u u u u u u u u u
Positive for women to have premarital sex u u u u u u 1.60 1.01 None u u u
Positive for men to have premarital sex u u u u u u 1.09 0.51 None u u u
Barriers to condom use
It is normal for a woman to propose condom use 1.07 0.32** Positive** u u u u u u u u u
If women suggest condom use, lose respect u u u 1.62** 1.91** None u u u u u u
Men should take responsibility for protection u u u u u u 0.24* 0.97 None u u u
Self-efficacy
Believes that AIDS is avoidable 0.96 0.11** Positive** u u u u u u u u u
Often discusses sexuality/contraception 1.46 0.77 Positive** u u u u u u 1.03 1.64* None
Discussed sexual matter with partner u u u 0.48* 0.52* None u u u u u u
Feels confused about sexual matters u u u u u u 0.21** 1.79 Positive** u u u
*p<.05. **p<.01. Notes: u=unavailable. The net effect is determined by the trend in each area and an interaction term that indicates whether the trends differ from each other.

back to text


 
TABLE 2. Odds ratios indicating change between baseline and postintervention surveys in selected health beliefs among young men in intervention and comparison areas, and net effect of the intervention
Health belief Cameroon Botswana Guinea
Intervention Comparison Net effect Intervention Comparison Net effect Intervention Comparison Net effect
Perceptions of risk
Sexual activity carries the risk of AIDS 0.66** 0.62** None 3.02** 2.68** None 0.81 0.91 None
Sexual activity carries the risk of pregnancy 1.36* 1.37* None 1.90** 2.54** None 1.28 3.48** Negative**
Benefits of abstinence
Protects against unwanted pregnancy 3.48** 4.48** None u u u u u u
Protects against AIDS u u u 5.25** 5.77** None 1.17 1.54** None
Benefit of monogamy/fidelity
Protects against AIDS u u u 1.51 1.03 None 1.06 1.03 None
Benefits of condom use
Protects against unwanted pregnancy 1.39* 0.57** Positive** 1.43* 1.06 None 2.55** 4.27** None
Protects against AIDS u u u 1.46** 1.12 None 1.04 2.32** Negative**
Benefit of other contraceptive use
Protects against pregnancy 3.93** 1.38 Positive** u u u 1.21 1.48 None
Barriers to abstinence
Most people my age have sex 0.52** 0.73* None u u u u u u
Sex gives status u u u 2.85** 2.31 None u u u
Opposition to premarital sex 0.50** 0.94 Negative** u u u u u u
Positive for women to have premarital sex u u u u u u u u u
Positive for men to have premarital sex u u u u u u u u u
Barriers to condom use
It is normal for a woman to propose condom use 0.73** 0.60** None u u u u u u
If women suggest condom use, lose respect u u u 1.02 0.75 None u u u
Men should take responsibility for protection u u u u u u u u u
Self-efficacy
Believes that AIDS is avoidable 0.64* 0.46** None u u u u u u
Often discusses sexuality/contraception 1.37 0.68* Positive** u u u 0.93 0.47** None
Discussed sexual matter with partner u u u 3.11** 3.92** None u u u
Feels confused about sexual matters u u u u u u u u u
*p<.05. **p<.01. Notes: u=unavailable. The net effect is determined by the trend in each area and an interaction term that indicates whether the trends differ from each other. Data for South African men are not shown because of poor quality.

back to text


 
TABLE 3. Odds ratios indicating change between baseline and postintervention surveys in selected behaviors among young women in intervention and comparison areas, and net effect of the intervention
Behavior Cameroon Botswana South Africa Guinea
Intervention Comparison Net effect Intervention Comparison Net effect Intervention Comparison Net effect Intervention Comparison Net effect
Sexual partnerships
Sexually experienced 0.81 0.80 None 0.44** 0.45** None 0.68 1.22 None 0.85 1.05 None
Two or more partners during last month 1.71* 2.38** None u u u u u u 2.90 0.35 Negative*
Two or more casual partners in last year u u u 1.98* 1.92* None u u u u u u
Have fewer partners to protect from AIDS u u u u u u u u u 1.85* 0.64 Positive*
Contraceptive use
Ever used condom 2.27** 0.87 Positive** 1.64 1.55 None 1.85 2.20* None 0.42** 0.43** None
Used condom at last sex 1.66* 2.13** None 0.71 1.46 None 1.49 3.73 None 0.80 0.31* Positive*
Uses condoms for pregnancy prevention 3.82** 2.12** Positive* u u u 0.79 14.5* Negative* u u u
Ever done anything to prevent pregnancy u u u 5.03** 1.07 Positive* u u u u u u
Ever used pill u u u 1.40 0.81 None u u u 5.32** 0.65 Positive**
Uses modern method for pregnancy prevention 3.32** 5.90** None u u u 1.73 1.91 None u u u
Uses abstinence for pregnancy prevention 2.40** 0.56** Positive** u u u u u u u u u
*p<.05. **p<.01. Notes: u=unavailable. The net effect is determined by the trend in each area and an interaction term that indicates whether the trends differ from each other.

back to text


 
TABLE 4. Odds ratios indicating change between baseline and postintervention surveys in selected behaviors among young men in intervention and comparison areas, and net effect of the intervention
Behavior Cameroon Botswana Guinea
Intervention Comparison Net effect Intervention Comparison Net effect Intervention Comparison Net effect
Sexual partnerships
Sexually experienced 0.44** 0.54** None 0.81 1.15 None 1.03 0.80 None
Two or more partners during last month 0.36** 1.09 Positive** u u u 1.45 0.62 None
Two or more casual partners in last year u u u 0.22** 0.93 Positive** u u u
Have fewer partners to protect from AIDS u u u u u u 1.44 1.05 None
Contraceptive use
Ever used condom 1.19 0.81 None 0.70 2.00 None 1.77** 0.91 None
Used condom at last sex 1.07 0.91 None 0.85 1.19 None 1.50** 0.75 Positive*
Uses condoms for pregnancy prevention 2.52** 1.75** None u u u u u u
Ever done anything to prevent pregnancy u u u 1.04 2.32* None u u u
Ever used pill u u u 1.87* 1.91 None u u u
Uses modern method for pregnancy prevention 11.05** 1.93 Positive** u u u u u u
Uses abstinence for pregnancy prevention 3.10** 1.99** Positive* u u u u u u
*p<.05. **p<.01. Notes: u=unavailable. The net effect is determined by the trend in each area and an interaction term that indicates whether the trends differ from each other. Data for South African men are not presented because of poor quality. At the time this article was written, Sohail Agha was senior research and evaluation coordinator, AIDSMark/PSI, and an affiliate of the Department of Demography, University of Zambia. He is currently senior scientist, Abt Associates, and deputy director of research, Commercial Market Strategies Project, Washington, DC.

back to text

© copyright 2002, the Alan Guttmacher Institute.