4.6 Article

Understanding the barriers and factors to HIV testing intention of women engaging in compensated dating in Hong Kong: The application of the extended Theory of Planned Behavior

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213920

关键词

-

资金

  1. Commissioned Health and Medical Research Fund of Food and Health Bureau of HKSAR Government [CU-16-C15]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Women engaging in compensated dating is one of the at risk group of HIV infection due to multiple sexual partnerships and risky sexual practices. The present study examined the prevalence of HIV testing behavior and intention, and identified factors associated with HIV testing intention among women engaging in compensated dating in Hong Kong. Factors from the Theory of Planned Behaviors and the role of various types of barriers to HIV testing were also explored. Methods An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was conducted online. Target participants were women who have engaged in compensated dating and provided sex services to clients. Participants were recruited via three sources, including i) online outreaching, ii) referral made by NGOs, and iii) referral made by participants. A total of 183 participants completed the study. Results Respectively 29.7% and 18.6% have taken up HIV testing and showed intention to take up HIV testing in the future year. Results from the multiple hierarchical regression model showed that having ever received HIV testing (beta = 0.44, p < .001), attitudes towards HIV testing (beta = 0.22, p < .01), subjective norm (beta = 0.18, p < .05), perceived behavioral control (beta = 0.18, p < .01) and perceived discrimination from health care workers (beta = -0.24, p < .05) significantly predicted intention to take up HIV testing. Conclusion The present study demonstrates the applicability of extended TPB in HIV testing intention among women engaging in compensated dating. Interventions to promote HIV testing among this group are greatly warranted.

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