4.3 Article

HIV-related risk behaviors in Cambodia and effects of mobility

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.qai.0000174654.25535.f7

关键词

Cambodia; HIV; risk behavior; population survey; mobility; condom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To Study HIV risk behaviors in different population groups, linkages to bridge Populations, and to examine factors affecting Such behaviors and links. Methods: Ten population groups in 4 provinces were Surveyed. Stratified random Cluster sampling Was used, and interviews were conducted to provide information oil sociodemographic characteristics, mobility, and risk behaviors. The groups surveyed were female sex workers (FSWs), household men and women, Youths in vocational training, and men with high-mobility Occupations (fishermen, mototaxi drivers, police, military, casino workers, and deminers). The total number surveyed was 3848. Results: The proportion reporting sex in the past year with FSWs differed sharply between male groups ranging from 20% to 51% in the high-mobility groups and 5% to 10% in the other groups. Non-commercial sex varied less by group. Consistent condom protection (always used condoms in the past 3 months) with FSWs was high (> 85% for most groups). However, condom use was significantly less with noncommercial partners, a high proportion of whom complained lack of condom availability. For the different male groups, about a travel away from home > 1 month in the past year was a strong independent determinant of both sex with FSWs and noncommercial sex. Casual sex was more common in young unmarried men. Women in the general population did not report casual sex, but 41% of them were worried about being infected by their husbands. Conclusions: The results Suggest mobility is a strong determinant of casual sex. Although FSWs may still act as an important bridge for HIV transmission in Cambodia, noncommercial sex is becoming increasingly important due to the relatively low condom use in Such relationships.

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

4.3
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