BackgroundCurrently, provider-initiated human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing (PIHT) in health facilities is one of the strategies to advance HIV testing and related services. However, many HIV infected clients are missing the opportunities. This study intends to identify predictors of refusal of PIHT among clients visiting adult outpatient departments (OPDs) in Jimma town.MethodsAn unmatched case control study was conducted among 296 clients: 149 cases refusing HIV testing and 147 controls accepting HIV testing. The study recruited clients from OPDs of four public health facilities between March 6 and April 8, 2011 using consecutive sampling. The study instrument was adapted mainly considering health belief model (HBM). Jimma University ethical committee reviewed the study protocol. Data were collected by face-to-face interview and analyzed using SPSS Statistics (IBM Corporation, Somers, NY) software, version 16.0. Data were subjected to factor and reliability analysis. For prediction analysis, the study used logistic regression and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). To see the effects among HBM constructs, the study used standardized beta (β) coefficients at P < 0.05.ResultsThe study findings showed adjusted protective effects on refusal of PIHT for residence outside study town [adjusted OR (AOR) (95% CI) = 0.41 (0.22–0.79)] and higher scores of perceived benefit of early testing [AOR (95% CI)] = 0.86 (0.69–0.99)], self efficacy to live with HIV [AOR (95% CI) = 0.79 (0.66–0.93)], nondisclosure agreement [AOR (95% CI) = 0.74 (0.58–0.93)], perceived explicitness of opt-out right during initiation [AOR (95% CI) = 0.74 (0.56–0.98)] and clients’ perceptions of selective initiation of HIV suspected [AOR (95% CI) = 0.54 (0.41–0.73)]. On the other hand, report of recent testing [AOR (95% CI) = 3.82 (1.71–8.55)] and perceived unpreparedness for testing [AOR (95% CI) = 1.86 (1.57–2.21)] aggravated refusal of PIHT. Exposure to cues to testing significantly reduced perceived barriers [β (P) = −0.05 (0.037)].ConclusionClients’ perceived barriers: feeling of unpreparedness for testing strongly aggravated refusal of test. Enhanced self-efficacy to live with HIV and presence of cues to HIV testing would reduce unpreparedness and protect from refusing PIHT.

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Since the first HIV/AIDS cases were reported in 1981, HIV has become one of the world’s most serious health and development challenges. Messages should be persuasive and appealing in order to bring the desired effect among the target group. This study aims to assess the factors associated with responses to HIV/AIDS prevention messages among university students.METHODS: A facility based cross-sectional study was conducted using self-administered questionnaire. A total of 710 Wollega University regular students drawn by multi-stage sampling were included. The data were summarized and organized with different descriptive measures and regression analysis using SPSS 16.0.RESULTS: Six hundred ninety-three (693), 429(61.9%) male and 264 (38.1%) female students were participated making a response rate of 97.6%. The mean age of the respondents was (21.27+ 1.703) (males = 21.60+1.618; females = 20.72+1.701). About 252(36.4%) of the respondents were sexually active, and the mean age of sexual initiation was (18.08+ 2.416), male (18.47+2.294), and female (17.43+2.491). Perceived severity, perceived self and response efficacy of abstinence significantly predicted the current practice of abstinence (R=0.304, adjR2 =0.087). Perceived self-efficacy of being faithful significantly predicted the current practice of being monogamous (R=0.218, adjR2 =0.042). Perceived self and response efficacy of condom use significantly predicted practice of consistent condom use (R=0.398, adjR2 =0.153).CONCLUSION: Perceived self and response efficacy more predicted HIV/AIDS prevention methods than other variables; so an intervention planned targeting those variables would be more successful on HIV/AIDS prevention in the university.