4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Gender differences in behavioural and psychosocial predictors of HIV testing and return for test results in a high-risk population

Journal

Publisher

CARFAX PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1080/09540120050043007

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA01070, DA05565, DA06719] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We assessed gender differences in psychosocial and behavioural predictors of HIV testing and returning for results in a high-risk sample of 1,049 predominately minority, impoverished, homeless and/or drug-abusing women (n = 621) and men (n = 428). Predictors included latent variables representing injection drug use, self-esteem, social support, AIDS knowledge, poor access to health services, perceived risk for AIDS, sexual risk behaviour and the mediators of positive and negative coping styles. Significant predictors of test and return for women included injection drug use, greater social support, more AIDS Knowledge, a higher perceived risk for AIDS and a positive coping style. Significant predictors for the melt included injection drug use, greater AIDS Knowledge, a higher perceived risk for AIDS and a positive coping style. Although greater social support was not significant for the men, the significant predictors of HIV testing and return were generally similar for the melt and women. However, the men evaluated their risk of AIDS significantly lower than the women, although they reported more sexual risk behaviours and equally risky injection drug use behaviours. Results suggest that interventions designed to increase AIDS Knowledge, to raise the perception of risk and to promote a positive coping style would be effective tit encouraging more HIV testing for both men and women, but raising perceptions of what constitutes personal risk behaviours may need special emphasis when delivering prevention programmes to men.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available