4.3 Article

Men's Endorsement of Intimate Partner Violence and HIV Testing Behavior Across Sub-Saharan Africa

Journal

AIDS AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 27, Issue 2, Pages 454-461

Publisher

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10461-022-03780-9

Keywords

Intimate Partner Violence; HIV Testing; Gender Attitudes; Gender Norms; Sub-Saharan Africa

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite an overall increase in HIV testing in sub-Saharan Africa, men still lag behind women in the use of HIV testing services. A study found that men's endorsement of intimate partner violence (IPV) is related to their lifetime and recent HIV testing, suggesting that addressing inequitable gender attitudes is crucial in increasing men's HIV testing in the region. However, the strength of this relationship varies across countries and regions, highlighting the importance of considering contextual differences.
Despite an upward trend in HIV testing across sub-Saharan Africa, men continue to lag women in the use of HIV testing services. Inequitable gender attitudes held by some men may be implicated in their suboptimal HIV testing behaviors. We sought to ascertain the relationship between men?s endorsement of intimate partner violence (IPV), which is one manifestation of inequitable gender attitudes, and their lifetime and recent HIV testing, using nationally representative Demographic and Health Survey data from 23 sub-Saharan African countries. In a pooled analysis, we found that a unit increase in the IPV index scale is associated with 8% lower odds of lifetime HIV testing, and 6% lower odds of recent HIV testing. The strength of this relationship, however, varied across countries and regions. Our findings suggest that efforts to increase men?s HIV testing in the region should address the inequitable gender attitudes underpinning men?s endorsement of IPV, but that it is important to consider contextual variation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available