Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about HIV infection and AIDS among healthy factory workers and their wives, Kinshasa, Zaire

Irwin, Kathleen L.; Bertrand, Jane T.; Ndilu, Mibandumba; Mbuyi, K.; Muremeri, Chirezi; Mukoka, Makolo; Munkolenkole, Kamenga; Nzila, Nzilambi; Bosenge, Ngaly; Ryder, Robert W.; Peterson, Herbert B.; Lee, Nancy C.; Wingo, Phyllis A.; O’Reilly, Kevin; Rufo, Kathy

doi:10.1016/0277-9536(91)90247-a

Cited by 37 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Group work is invaluable for 'grounded tbeory development -focusing on tbe generation ratber tban tbe testing of tbeory and explodng tbe categories wbicb the participants use to order tbeir expedence (Glaszer and Strauss 1967). How do researcber participants tbink about 'dsk', for exampie, and wbat cdteda do tbey use to evaluate tbe tbreat posed by HIV (Irwin et al 1991), bazardous waste (Desvousges and Smitb 1988) or tbe factors influencing one's susceptibility to beart attack (Morgan 1988).…”

Section: Complementary Interactions: the Importance Of The Shared Cidmentioning

confidence: 99%

The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants

Kitzinger

1994

Sociology Health & Illness

2,787

2,089

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What are focus groups? How are tbey distinct from ordinary group discussions and wbat use are tbey anyway? Tbis article introduces focus group metbodology, explores ways of conducting sucb groups and examines wbat tbis tecbnique of data collection can offer researcbers in general and medical sociologists in particular. It concentrates on tbe one feature wbicb inevitably distinguisbes focus groups from one-to-one interviews or questionnaires -namely the interaction between research participants -and argues for tbe overt exploration and exploitation of sucb interaction in tbe researcb process.

show abstract

Section: Complementary Interactions: the Importance Of The Shared Cidmentioning

confidence: 99%

The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants

Kitzinger

1994

Sociology Health & Illness

2,787

2,089

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…40,41 Publications describe strategies for sampling, [42][43][44][45] analyzing, reporting, [45][46][47][48][49] and combining qualitative and quantitative methods 50 ; and a growing body of health care research reports fi ndings from studies using in-depth interviews, [51][52][53][54] focus groups, [55][56][57] observation, [58][59][60] and a range of mixed-methods designs. [61][62][63] As part of a project to evaluate health care improvements, we identifi ed a need to help health care researchers, particularly those with limited experience in qualitative research, evaluate and understand qualitative methodologies.…”

Section: Crit Er Ia F or Qu A L Itat Iv E R Ese A Rchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations

Cohen¹,

Crabtree²

2008

The Annals of Family Medicine

641

489

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE We wanted to review and synthesize published criteria for good qualitative research and develop a cogent set of evaluative criteria. METHODSWe identifi ed published journal articles discussing criteria for rigorous research using standard search strategies then examined reference sections of relevant journal articles to identify books and book chapters on this topic. A cross-publication content analysis allowed us to identify criteria and understand the beliefs that shape them. RESULTSSeven criteria for good qualitative research emerged: (1) carrying out ethical research; (2) importance of the research; (3) clarity and coherence of the research report; (4) use of appropriate and rigorous methods; (5) importance of refl exivity or attending to researcher bias; (6) importance of establishing validity or credibility; and (7) importance of verifi cation or reliability. General agreement was observed across publications on the fi rst 4 quality dimensions. On the last 3, important divergent perspectives were observed in how these criteria should be applied to qualitative research, with differences based on the paradigm embraced by the authors. CONCLUSIONQualitative research is not a unifi ed fi eld. Most manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts and are likely to embrace a generic set of criteria rather than those relevant to the particular qualitative approach proposed or reported. Reviewers and researchers need to be aware of this tendency and educate health care researchers about the criteria appropriate for evaluating qualitative research from within the theoretical and methodological framework from which it emerges.

show abstract

“…Workers are often young adults who are away from their families. Studies conducted in several countries have documented high risk behaviors in this population (Borgdorff et al, 1994 ; Buregyeya, Bazeyo, Moen, Michelo, & Fylkesnes, 2008 ; Cash, Sanguansermsri, Busayawong, & Chuamanochan, 1997 ; Kumar et al, 2009 ; Mukoka et al, 1991 ; Nishigaya, 2002 ; Puri & Cleland, 2006 ). For examples, Puri and Cleland ( 2006 ) found very low use of condoms despite a high level of AIDS knowledge among the factory workers of Nepal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

A workplace intervention program and the increase in HIV knowledge, perceived accessibility and use of condoms among young factory workers in Thailand

Chamratrithirong

Ford

Punpuing

et al. 2017

SAHARA-J: Journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vulnerability to Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection among factory workers is a global problem. This study investigated the effectiveness of an intervention to increase AIDS knowledge, perceived accessibility to condoms and condom use among young factory workers in Thailand. The intervention was a workplace program designed to engage the private sector in HIV prevention. A cross-sectional survey conducted in 2008 to measure program outcomes in factories in Thailand was used in this study. The workplace intervention included the development of policies for management of HIV-positive employees, training sessions for managers and workers, and distribution of educational materials and condoms. A multi-level analysis was used to investigate the effect of HIV/AIDS prevention program components at the workplace on HIV/AIDS knowledge, perceived accessibility to condoms and condom use with regular sexual partners among 699 young factory workers (aged 18–24 years), controlling for their individual socio-demographic characteristics. Interventions related to the management and services component including workplace AIDS policy formulation, condom services programs and behavioral change campaigns were found to be significantly related to increased AIDS knowledge, perceived accessibility to condoms and condom use with regular partners. The effect of the HIV/AIDS training for managers, peer leaders and workers was positive but not statistically significant. With some revision of program components, scaling up of workplace interventions and the engagement of the private sector in HIV prevention should be seriously considered.

show abstract

Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about HIV infection and AIDS among healthy factory workers and their wives, Kinshasa, Zaire

Cited by 37 publications

References 13 publications

The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants

The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction between research participants

Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Health Care: Controversies and Recommendations

A workplace intervention program and the increase in HIV knowledge, perceived accessibility and use of condoms among young factory workers in Thailand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About