Search

BackgroundBesides access to medical male circumcision, HIV testing, access to condoms and consistent condom use are additional strategies men can use to prevent HIV acquisition. We examine male behavior toward testing and condom use.ObjectiveTo determine factors associated with never testing for HIV and consistent condom use among men who never test in Soweto.MethodsA cross-sectional survey in Soweto was conducted in 1539 men aged 18-32 years in 2007. Data were collected on socio-demographic and behavioral characteristics to determine factors associated with not testing and consistent condom use.ResultsOver two thirds (71%) of men had not had an HIV test and the majority (55%, n = 602) were young (18-23). Of those not testing, condom use was poor (44%, n = 304). Men who were 18-23 years (aOR: 2.261, CI: 1.534-3.331), with primary (aOR: 2.096, CI: 1.058-4.153) or high school (aOR: 1.622, CI: 1.078-2.439) education, had sex in the last 6 months (aOR: 1.703, CI: 1.055-2.751), and had ≥1 sexual partner (aOR: 1.749, CI: 1.196-2.557) were more likely not to test. Of those reporting condom use (n = 1036, 67%), consistent condom use was 43% (n = 451). HIV testing did not correlate with condom use.ConclusionLow rates of both condom use and HIV testing among men in a high HIV prevalence setting are worrisome and indicate an urgent need to develop innovative behavioral strategies to address this shortfall. Condom use is poor in this population whether tested or not tested for HIV, indicating no association between condom use and HIV testing.

Background: Research in the predictors of all-cause mortality in HIV-infected people has widely been reported in literature. Making an informed decision requires understanding the methods used. Objectives: We present a review on study designs, statistical methods and their appropriateness in original articles reporting on predictors of all-cause mortality in HIV-infected people between January 2002 and December 2011. Statistical methods were compared between 2002–2006 and 2007–2011. Time-to-event analysis techniques were considered appropriate. Data Sources: Pubmed/Medline. Study Eligibility Criteria: Original English-language articles were abstracted. Letters to the editor, editorials, reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, case reports and any other ineligible articles were excluded. Results: A total of 189 studies were identified (n = 91 in 2002–2006 and n = 98 in 2007–2011) out of which 130 (69%) were prospective and 56 (30%) were retrospective. One hundred and eighty-two (96%) studies described their sample using descriptive statistics while 32 (17%) made comparisons using t-tests. Kaplan-Meier methods for time-to-event analysis were commonly used in the earlier period (n = 69, 76% vs. n = 53, 54%, p = 0.002). Predictors of mortality in the two periods were commonly determined using Cox regression analysis (n = 67, 75% vs. n = 63, 64%, p = 0.12). Only 7 (4%) used advanced survival analysis methods of Cox regression analysis with frailty in which 6 (3%) were used in the later period. Thirty-two (17%) used logistic regression while 8 (4%) used other methods. There were significantly more articles from the first period using appropriate methods compared to the second (n = 80, 88% vs. n = 69, 70%, p-value = 0.003). Conclusion: Descriptive statistics and survival analysis techniques remain the most common methods of analysis in publications on predictors of all-cause mortality in HIV-infected cohorts while prospective research designs are favoured. Sophisticated techniques of time-dependent Cox regression and Cox regression with frailty are scarce. This motivates for more training in the use of advanced time-to-event methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]