Abstract
Objective
Study Design
Results
Conclusion
Implications
Keywords
1. Introduction
UNFPA, 2015. Girlhood, Not Motherhood: Preventing Adolescent Pregnancy. UNFPA, New York. World Health Organization (WHO), 2015. Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health. Available at: http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/topics/maternal/adolescent_pregnancy/en. (Accessed 14 April 2020).
World Health Organization, 2021, HIV/AIDS. July Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-aids (Accessed 19 July 2021).
World Health Organization, 2021, HIV/AIDS. July Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-aids (Accessed 19 July 2021).
2. Methods
2.1 Study design and sampling
2.2 Measures
2.3 Analysis
3. Results
3.1 Description of the participants
Variable | n (%) |
---|---|
Age group | |
15−19 | 2515 (56.7) |
20−24 | 1884 (43.3) |
Currently in school | |
Yes | 2518 (56.2) |
No | 1881 (43.8) |
Socioeconomic status | |
Relatively high SES | 792 (20.3) |
Relatively low SES | 3607 (79.7) |
In a relationship | |
Yes | 2775 (62.0) |
No | 1624 (38.0) |
Had a boyfriend in the past 12 months a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. [1.3% (n = 59) were excluded for the variable “had a boyfriend in the past 12 months”, 1.2% (n = 35) were excluded for the variable “ever pregnant”, 1.1% (n = 18) for abortion, 3.4% (n = 54) for first pregnancy intended]. | |
Yes | 2953 (67.3) |
No | 1387 (31.4) |
Ever had sex | |
Yes | 3009 (68.4) |
No | 1390 (31.6) |
Accessed SRH related websites (BeWise, MomConnect, iLoveLife, Chommy, & Rise) | |
Yes | 739 (17.5) |
No | 3660 (82.5) |
Has had transactional relationship | |
Yes | 481 (10.7) |
No | 3918 (89.3) |
Has had transactional sex | |
Yes | 424 (9.5) |
No | 3975 (90.5) |
Ever pregnant a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. [1.3% (n = 59) were excluded for the variable “had a boyfriend in the past 12 months”, 1.2% (n = 35) were excluded for the variable “ever pregnant”, 1.1% (n = 18) for abortion, 3.4% (n = 54) for first pregnancy intended]. | |
Yes | 1680 (52.1) |
No | 1412 (46.3) |
Pregnant more than once a .Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. [1.3% (n = 59) were excluded for the variable “had a boyfriend in the past 12 months”, 1.2% (n = 35) were excluded for the variable “ever pregnant”, 1.1% (n = 18) for abortion, 3.4% (n = 54) for first pregnancy intended]. | |
Yes | 453 (26.7) |
No | 1213 (72.4) |
First pregnancy before the age of 18 years old a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. [1.3% (n = 59) were excluded for the variable “had a boyfriend in the past 12 months”, 1.2% (n = 35) were excluded for the variable “ever pregnant”, 1.1% (n = 18) for abortion, 3.4% (n = 54) for first pregnancy intended]. | |
Yes | 583 (36.2) |
No | 990 (63.8) |
First pregnancy intended a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. [1.3% (n = 59) were excluded for the variable “had a boyfriend in the past 12 months”, 1.2% (n = 35) were excluded for the variable “ever pregnant”, 1.1% (n = 18) for abortion, 3.4% (n = 54) for first pregnancy intended]. | |
Yes | 408 (26.6) |
No | 1218 (70.1) |
Ever chosen abortion a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. [1.3% (n = 59) were excluded for the variable “had a boyfriend in the past 12 months”, 1.2% (n = 35) were excluded for the variable “ever pregnant”, 1.1% (n = 18) for abortion, 3.4% (n = 54) for first pregnancy intended]. | |
Yes | 123 (7.8) |
No | 1538 (91.0) |
HIV status | |
Negative | 3829 (87.6) |
Positive | 568 (12.4) |
Participated in the intervention | |
Yes | 2103 (48.4) |
No | 2296 (51.6) |
Social support from parents | |
High support | 2730 (61.9) |
Moderate support | 1207 (27.8) |
Low support | 462 (10.3) |
Experienced IPV and/or sexual violence in the past 12 months | |
Yes | 1263 (29.6) |
No | 3136 (70.4) |
3.2 Access to condoms and other methods of contraception in the past year
Accessed condoms in the past year | Accessed other methods of contraceptives in the past year | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Variable | Yes n (%) | No n (%) | p-value | Yes n (%) | No n (%) | p-value |
Currently in school | ||||||
Yes | 1019 (41.3) | 1499 (58.7) | <0.01 | 753 (30.3) | 1765 (69.7) | <0.01 |
No | 1238 (66.3) | 643 (33.7) | 1024 (53.8) | 857 (46.2) | ||
Socioeconomic status | ||||||
Relatively high SES | 411 (52.4) | 381 (47.6) | 0.90 | 315 (39.3) | 477 (60.7) | 0.32 |
Relatively low SES | 1846 (52.2) | 1761 (47.8) | 1462 (41.0) | 2145 (59.0) | ||
In a relationship | ||||||
Yes | 1687 (61.8) | 1088 (38.2) | <0.01 | 1394 (50.7) | 1381 (49.3) | <0.01 |
No | 570 (36.7) | 1054 (63.3) | 383 (24.3) | 1241 (75.7) | ||
Had a boyfriend in the past 12 months a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. [1.3% (n = 59) were excluded for the variable “had a boyfriend in the past 12 months” and 1.6% (n = 49) were excluded for the variable “ever pregnant”]. | ||||||
Yes | 1682 (57.9) | 1271 (42.1) | <0.01 | 1359 (46.1) | 1594 (53.9) | <0.01 |
No | 547 (40.5) | 840 (59.5) | 397 (29.2) | 990 (70.8) | ||
Accessed SRH related websites (BeWise, MomConnect, iLoveLife, Chommy, & Rise) | ||||||
Yes | 623 (72.3) | 239 (27.7) | <0.01 | 487 (55.6) | 375 (44.4) | <0.01 |
No | 1634 (47.1) | 1903 (52.9) | 1290 (36.8) | 2247 (63.2) | ||
Has had transactional relationship | ||||||
Yes | 337 (69.4) | 144 (30.6) | <0.01 | 280 (57.8) | 201 (42.2) | <0.01 |
No | 1920 (50.2) | 1998 (49.8) | 1497 (38.6) | 2421 (61.4) | ||
Has had transactional sex | ||||||
Yes | 300 (71.3) | 124 (28.7) | <0.01 | 247 (58.4) | 177 (41.6) | <0.01 |
No | 1957 (50.3) | 2018 (49.7) | 1530 (38.8) | 2445 (61.2) | ||
Ever pregnant a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. [1.3% (n = 59) were excluded for the variable “had a boyfriend in the past 12 months” and 1.6% (n = 49) were excluded for the variable “ever pregnant”]. | ||||||
Yes | 1170 (69.8) | 510 (30.2) | <0.01 | 1084 (63.8) | 596 (36.2) | <0.01 |
No | 803 (57.7) | 609 (42.3) | 548 (39.6) | 864 (60.4) | ||
HIV status a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. [1.3% (n = 59) were excluded for the variable “had a boyfriend in the past 12 months” and 1.6% (n = 49) were excluded for the variable “ever pregnant”]. | ||||||
Positive | 388 (69.7) | 180 (30.3) | <0.01 | 312 (54.0) | 256 (46.0) | <0.01 |
Negative | 1868 (49.8) | 1961 (50.2) | 1465 (38.8) | 2364 (61.2) | ||
Participated in the intervention | ||||||
Yes | 1146 (55.7) | 957 (44.3) | <0.01 | 826 (39.6) | 1277 (60.4) | 0.11 |
No | 1111 (49.0) | 1185 (51.0) | 951 (41.6) | 1345 (58.4) | ||
Social support from parents | ||||||
High support | 1355 (50.5) | 1375 (49.5) | 0.01 | 1066 (39.3) | 1664 (60.7) | <0.01 |
Moderate support | 625 (53.3) | 582 (46.7) | 489 (40.5) | 718 (59.5) | ||
Low support | 277 (59.8) | 185 (40.2) | 222 (48.8) | 240 (51.2) | ||
Experienced IPV and/or sexual violence in the past 12 months | ||||||
Yes | 815 (65.0) | 448 (35.0) | <0.01 | 667 (53.0) | 596 (47.0) | <0.01 |
No | 1442 (46.9) | 1694 (53.1) | 1110 (35.4) | 2026 (64.6) |
3.3 Use of contraceptives other than condoms at last sex among young women who had ever had sex
15−19 years n = 1237 | 20−24 years n = 1647 | Total N = 2884 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Used contraceptives at last sex | Used contraceptives at last sex | Used contraceptives at last sex | |||||||
Variable | Yes n (%) | No n (%) | p-value | Yes n (%) | No n (%) | p-value | Yes n (%) | No n (%) | p-value |
Currently in school | |||||||||
Yes | 279 (31.1) | 625 (68.9) | 0.02 | 161 (42.5) | 216 (57.5) | 0.33 | 440 (34.4) | 841 (65.6) | 0.01 |
No | 121 (37.1) | 212 (62.9) | 511 (40.4) | 759 (59.6) | 632 (39.7) | 971 (60.3) | |||
Socioeconomic status | |||||||||
Relatively high SES | 58 (27.8) | 146 (72.2) | 0.06 | 132 (39.9) | 193 (60.1) | 0.62 | 190 (35.2) | 339 (64.8) | 0.18 |
Relatively low SES | 342 (33.8) | 691 (66.2) | 540 (41.1) | 782 (58.9) | 882 (37.9) | 1473 (69.1) | |||
In a relationship | |||||||||
Yes | 328 (35.4) | 618 (64.6) | <0.01 | 566 (42.8) | 771 (57.2) | 0.01 | 894 (39.7) | 1389 (60.3) | <0.01 |
No | 72 (24.6) | 219 (75.4) | 106 (33.3) | 204 (66.7) | 178 (29.2) | 423 (70.8) | |||
Had a boyfriend in the past 12 months a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. [1.3% (n = 59) were excluded for the variable “had a boyfriend in the past 12 months” and 1.6% (n = 49) were excluded for the variable “ever pregnant”]. | |||||||||
Yes | 326 (33.2) | 674 (66.8) | 0.61 | 532 (41.4) | 761 (58.6) | 0.31 | 858 (37.8) | 1435 (62.2) | 0.26 |
No | 70 (30.8) | 156 (69.2) | 133 (38.5) | 208 (61.5) | 203 (35.40 | 364 (64.6) | |||
Accessed SRH related websites (BeWise, MomConnect, iLoveLife, Chommy, & Rise) | |||||||||
Yes | 119 (42.5) | 162 (57.5) | <0.01 | 166 (42.8) | 208 (57.2) | 0.38 | 245 (43.4) | 318 (56.6) | 0.01 |
No | 281 (29.9) | 675 (70.1) | 506 (40.2) | 767 (59.8) | 827 (35.8) | 1494 (64.2) | |||
Used condom at last sex a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. [1.3% (n = 59) were excluded for the variable “had a boyfriend in the past 12 months” and 1.6% (n = 49) were excluded for the variable “ever pregnant”]. | |||||||||
Yes | 227 (32.1) | 488 (67.9) | 0.06 | 333 (40.8) | 486 (59.2) | 0.16 | 560 (36.7) | 974 (63.3) | 0.01 |
No | 166 (34.7) | 320 (65.3) | 334 (41.4) | 477 (58.6) | 500 (38.9) | 797 (61.1) | |||
Have transactional relationship | |||||||||
Yes | 72 (45.7) | 92 (54.3) | 0.01 | 128 (51.8) | 124 (48.2) | <0.01 | 200 (49.4) | 216 (50.6) | <0.01 |
No | 328 (30.8) | 745 (69.2) | 544 (39.0) | 851 (61.0) | 827 (35.4) | 1596 (64.6) | |||
Have transactional sex | |||||||||
Yes | 66 (48.3) | 75 (51.7) | <0.01 | 113 (50.8) | 110 (49.2) | 0.01 | 179 (49.9) | 185 (50.1) | <0.01 |
No | 334 (30.8) | 762 (69.2) | 559 (39.4) | 865 (60.6) | 893 (35.6) | 1627 (64.4) | |||
Ever pregnant a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. [1.3% (n = 59) were excluded for the variable “had a boyfriend in the past 12 months” and 1.6% (n = 49) were excluded for the variable “ever pregnant”]. | |||||||||
Yes | 171 (38.0) | 277 (62.0) | 0.01 | 502 (43.6) | 635 (56.4) | 0.01 | 673 (42.1) | 912 (57.9) | <0.01 |
No | 226 (30.1) | 552 (69.9) | 165 (34.9) | 331 (65.1) | 391 (31.9) | 883 (68.1) | |||
HIV status a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. [1.3% (n = 59) were excluded for the variable “had a boyfriend in the past 12 months” and 1.6% (n = 49) were excluded for the variable “ever pregnant”]. | |||||||||
Positive | 55 (43.6) | 74 (56.4) | 0.01 | 147 (41.9) | 199 (58.1) | 0.58 | 202 (42.4) | 273 (57.6) | 0.01 |
Negative | 345 (31.6) | 763 (68.4) | 525 (40.6) | 775 (59.4) | 870 (36.4) | 1538 (63.6) | |||
Participated in the intervention | |||||||||
Yes | 248 (37.1) | 429 (62.9) | <0.01 | 265 (40.4) | 380 (59.6) | 0.75 | 513 (38.8) | 809 (61.2) | 0.09 |
No | 152 (27.5) | 408 (72.5) | 407 (41.1) | 595 (58.9) | 559 (36.1) | 1003 (63.9) | |||
Social support from parents | |||||||||
High support | 228 (31.5) | 489 (68.5) | 0.03 | 403 (39.4) | 622 (60.6) | 0.08 | 631 (36.1) | 1111 (63.9) | 0.08 |
Moderate support | 130 (36.5) | 246 (63.5) | 184 (42.1) | 248 (57.9) | 314 (39.5) | 494 (60.5) | |||
Low support | 42 (29.2) | 102 (70.8) | 85 (46.0) | 105 (54.0) | 127 (38.6) | 207 (61.4) | |||
Experienced IPV and/or sexual violence in the past 12 months | |||||||||
Yes | 154 (37.6) | 268 (62.4) | 0.01 | 266 (42.7) | 360 (57.3) | 0.18 | 420 (40.6) | 628 (59.4) | 0.01 |
No | 246 (30.2) | 569 (69.8) | 406 (39.7) | 615 (60.3) | 652 (35.4) | 1184 (64.6) |
3. 4. Association between intervention participation and use of contraceptives other than condoms, and dual contraception at last sex
Variable | Adjusted Prevalence Ratios (aPR) | p-value 95% Confidence Interval lower upper |
---|---|---|
Intervention | ||
No (ref) | ||
Yes | 1.36 | < 0.001 1.21 1.53 |
Age Category | ||
15–19 (ref) | - | - |
20–24 | 1.33 | < 0.001 1.20 1.49 |
Intervention with interaction term | ||
Yes (15–19 years old, ref) | - | |
Yes (20–24 years old) | 0.74 | < 0.001 0.63 0.86 |
Currently in school | ||
No (ref) | - | |
Yes | 0.97 | 0.49 0.89 1.06 |
Socioeconomic status | ||
Relatively low SES (ref) | - | |
Relatively high SES | 0.95 | 0.37 0.85 1.06 |
Ever been pregnant a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. Age specific intervention effects estimated from the model adjusted for the covariates in the model. Age 15-19; PR=1.36; 95% CI 1.21−1.53, p < 0.001. Age 20-24; PR=1.00; 95% CI 0.90−1.12, p < 0.001. | ||
No (ref) | - | - |
Yes | 1.26 | < 0.001 1.15 1.37 |
HIV status | - | |
Positive (ref) | - | |
Negative | 0.92 | 0.09 0.83 1.01 |
Variable | Adjusted Prevalence Ratios (aPR) | p-value 95% Confidence Interval lower upper |
---|---|---|
Intervention | ||
No (ref) | ||
Yes | 1.45 | < 0.001 1.26 1.68 |
Age Category | ||
15–19 (ref) | - | - |
20–24 | 1.28 | < 0.001 1.12 1.49 |
Intervention with interaction term | ||
Yes (15–19 years old, ref) | - | |
Yes (20–24 years old) | 0.71 | < 0.001 0.59 0.86 |
Currently in school | ||
No (ref) | - | |
Yes | 1.01 | 0.80 0.92 1.12 |
Socioeconomic status | ||
Relatively low SES (ref) | - | |
Relatively high SES | 1.01 | 0.88 0.90 1.13 |
Ever been pregnant a Participants were given the response option “prefer not to answer” as well, which we did not included in this table as a very small percentage chose this option. Age specific intervention effects estimated from the model adjusted for the covariates in the model. Age 15-19; PR=1.46; 95% CI 1.26−1.68, p < 0.001. Age 20-24; PR=1.04; 95% CI 0.92−1.16, p < 0.01. | ||
No (ref) | - | - |
Yes | 1.07 | 0.14 0.97 1.18 |
HIV status | - | |
Positive (ref) | ||
Negative | 0.87 | 0.01 0.78 0.97 |
Name | Description | Intervention components |
---|---|---|
Soul-Buddyz Club | An in-school peer-education/youth club model in primary schools for children struggling academically, affected by HIV or with signs of neglect. Clubs were facilitated by educators, who attended annual training, and used age-appropriate materials | Biomedical Linkage and referral to health and other services Behavioral SRH education and peer support Structural Promote access to grants Promote an environment for ongoing learning Social cohesion |
Keeping Girls In-school | A high school-based intervention for adolescent girls at risk of dropping out of school including those affected by HIV, with caregiving responsibilities or with signs of neglect. It aimed to identify and support female learners who were at risk of dropping out of school prematurely. It included a peer education program facilitated by Peer Group Trainers or Health Educators | Biomedical HIV testing; TB, STI and GBV screening; Linkage and referral to services Behavioral SRH education; peer support; home visits to encourage school attendance Structural Career guidance; homework support; Promote an environment for ongoing learning |
RISE Clubs (In-school) | The Rise clubs were constituted by 15-20 young women from a school, who meet regularly to discuss issues that affect them. The clubs also linked young women to career guidance through career jamborees and homework support. The curriculum is contained in Rise magazines | Biomedical Linkage and referral to health services including HCT, PMTCTE, ART, SRH Behavioral SRH education; caregiving support; peer support; build self-efficacy and resilience Structural Social cohesion Community activism Career guidance |
RISE Clubs (Out-of- school) | The clubs were constituted by 15-20 young women from a community, who met regularly to discuss issues that affect them. The clubs also linked young women to educational and economic opportunities and local microenterprise development organizations | Biomedical Linkage and referral to health services including HTS, PMTCT, ART, SRH services Behavioral SRH education; caregiving support; peer support; build self-efficacy and resilience Structural Social cohesion Economic strengthening Community activism |
Health and welfare jamborees | These events were held in school or community venues and brought health, social and other services to communities to facilitate access for adolescent girls and young women and their communities | Biomedical HTS; TB, STI and GBV screening; linkage and referral to health services Behavioral SRH education Structural Career opportunities; social grants; birth registrations |
Community dialogues | Targeted at men and women 14 years of age and above living in the areas of the adolescent girl and young women intervention. Trained facilitators used promotional materials to guide dialogues in school or community venues. They promoted gender equity, prosocial male norms, and the uptake of men's SRH services | Biomedical Linkage and referral to health services Behavioral SRH education Structural GBV prevention |
4. Discussion
World Health Organization, 2021, HIV/AIDS. July Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-aids (Accessed 19 July 2021).
World Health Organization, 2021, HIV/AIDS. July Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-aids (Accessed 19 July 2021).
- Fatti G
- Shaikh N
- Jackson D
- Goga A
- Nachega JB
- Eley B
- et al.
- Kerrigan D
- Mbwambo J
- Likindikoki S
- Davis W
- Mantsios A
- Beckham SW
- et al.
Acknowledgment
References
- Progress and prospects for the control of HIV and tuberculosis in South Africa: a dynamical modelling study.The Lancet Public Health. 2017; 2 (doi:): e223-e230https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30066-X
- Unintended pregnancy in sub-Saharan Africa: magnitude of the problem and potential role of contraceptive implants to alleviate it.Contraception. 2008; 78 (doi:): 73-78https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.03.002
- Adolescent girls and young women: key populations for HIV epidemic control.J International AIDS Society. 2015; 18 (doi:): 19408https://doi.org/10.7448/IAS.18.2.19408
Demographic SA. Health Survey (SADHS), 2016. Key indicators report 2018. Pretoria
UNFPA, 2015. Girlhood, Not Motherhood: Preventing Adolescent Pregnancy. UNFPA, New York. World Health Organization (WHO), 2015. Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health. Available at: http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/topics/maternal/adolescent_pregnancy/en. (Accessed 14 April 2020).
World Health Organization, 2021, HIV/AIDS. July Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-aids (Accessed 19 July 2021).
Darroch JE, Woog V, Bankole A, Ashford LS, Points K. Costs and benefits of meeting the contraceptive needs of adolescents. Guttmacher Institute. 2016.
- Evaluation of a South African combination HIV prevention programme for adolescent girls and young women: HERStory Study.South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town2020
- Service delivery inequality in South African municipal areas: a new way to account for inter-jurisdictional differences.Urban Studies. 2016; 53 (doi:): 3336-3355https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015613001
- HIV care coverage among HIV-positive adolescent girls and young women in South Africa: Results from the HERStory Study.South African Medical Journal. 2021; 111: 460-468https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2021.v111i5.15351
- Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-m_samj-v111-n5-a17. [Accessed 14 February 2022].
StataCorp, Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. 2015 College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
- Perceptions of contraception services among recipients of a combination HIV-prevention interventions for adolescent girls and young women in South Africa: a qualitative study.Reproductive Health. 2020; 17 (doi:): 1-4https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-020-00970-3
- Predictors of contraceptive use among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) aged 15 to 24 years in South Africa: results from the 2012 national population-based household survey.BMC Women's Health. 2019; 19 (doi:): 158https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-019-0861-8
- Contraceptive knowledge, perceptions and use among adolescents in selected senior high schools in the central region of Ghana.J Sociol Res. 2012; 3 (doi:): 170-180https://doi.org/10.5296/jsr.v3i2.2311
- Reducing repeat pregnancies in adolescence: applying realist principles as part of a mixed-methods systematic review to explore what works, for whom, how and under what circumstances.BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2016; 16 (doi:): 1-2https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1066-x
- Low HIV incidence in pregnant and postpartum women receiving a community-based combination HIV prevention intervention in a high HIV incidence setting in South Africa.PLoS One. 2017; 12 (doi:)e0181691https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181691
- Project Shikamana: community empowerment-based combination HIV prevention significantly impacts HIV incidence and care continuum outcomes among female sex workers in Iringa, Tanzania.J Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (1999). 2019; 82 (doi:): 141https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000002123
Article info
Publication history
Footnotes
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. The findings, conclusions, and views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC, SAMRC, or their funding agencies.
Funding: This manuscript was supported by the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the terms of Cooperative Agreement 1U2GGH001150, and the Social Impact Bond of the South African Medical Research Council funded by the Global Fund. The combination HIV prevention interventions were funded by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, and implemented in 10 districts in South Africa by a range of government departments and civil society organizations that were appointed by the organizations responsible for the management of the adolescent girl and young women program: Western Cape Department of Health, KwaZulu-Natal Treasury, Kheth'Impilo, Soul City Institute for Social Justice, and the Networking HIV and AIDS Community of Southern Africa (NACOSA). The program was aligned with the She Conquers campaign and was implemented with support from the South African National AIDS Council (SANAC) through the Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM) and the CCM Secretariat.
Author Contribution: All authors participated in the conception and design of the study. KJ drafted the manuscript. KJ, CL, RB, CM conceptualized the study, prepared and performed the analyses and the interpretation of findings. All authors participated in the reviewing of the manuscript drafts until content was satisfactory for submission. All authors approved the submission of this manuscript.
Availability of data and materials: The dataset used for the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Identification
Copyright
User license
Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) |
Permitted
For non-commercial purposes:
- Read, print & download
- Redistribute or republish the final article
- Text & data mine
- Translate the article (private use only, not for distribution)
- Reuse portions or extracts from the article in other works
Not Permitted
- Sell or re-use for commercial purposes
- Distribute translations or adaptations of the article
Elsevier's open access license policy