4.6 Article

Knowledge, attitude and practice towards sexually transmitted diseases amongst the inmates of women shelters homes at Klang Valley

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 19, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-6863-5

关键词

Knowledge; Attitude; Practice; Sexually transmitted diseases; Women shelter home

资金

  1. Centre of Research and Innovation Management of The National University of Malaysia (UKM) Bangi
  2. Ministry of Health under the B40 Grand Challenges [CB40R, IDE 2018-01]
  3. [MI-2018-004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundPrevious studies show that there is a changing trend of sexual and reproductive behaviour among youth and this requires more attention and awareness especially on sexually transmitted diseases (STD). This study was carried out to evaluate the knowledge, attitude and practice of sexually transmitted diseases among selected inmates of women shelter homes.MethodsA cross-sectional study was carried out by involving 60 participants whom aged in between 13 to 25years old. The questionnaires were developed in Bahasa Melayu' and it has been anonymous guided questionnaires.ResultsThe result showed that the mean age of the participants was 17.9years old and most of the participants have completed secondary school (91.7%). Overall, the level of knowledge of participants on STDs were classified into three groups; high knowledge' (33.3%), medium knowledge' (35.0%) and low knowledge' (31.7%). The majority have heard of HIV/AIDS (95%) but with respect to other STDs was less well known. Whereas, the mean score for attitude was 23.1 out total 25. Their knowledge level was not influenced by their age (p=0.61) and socio-economic status (p=0.85). However, their attitude was influenced by their age (p<0.05).ConclusionKnowledge on non-HIV STDs is still lacking and risky behaviours have been practiced. Although there were high level of knowledge and attitude among them but their practice on sexuality contradicts it especially on contraceptive use and pre-marital sex.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据