Exploring Women’s Decision-Making Power and HIV/AIDS Prevention Practices in South Africa
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Statistical Methods
- I.
- age group: participants’ current age was categorized into four main categories such as 15–24 years, 25–34 years, 35–44 years, and 45 years and above;
- II.
- The place of residence is divided into urban and rural;
- III.
- Educational status is categorized into–no education, primary education, secondary education, and higher education;
- IV.
- Ethnicity was divided into black/African, white, colored, Indian/Asian and other
- V.
- Employment status with “yes” and “no” categories;
- VI.
- Reading the newspaper, listening to the radio and watching television were categorized as “not at all,” “less than once a week,” and “at least once a week”;
- VII.
- The wealth index variable is measured based on possession of household assets, and scores were given using principal component analysis, and the categories were: poorest, poorer, middle, richer, and richest.
2.2.2. Analysis
2.3. Ethical Aspects
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Edwards, L. HIV/AIDS, gender and sexuality: Socio-cultural impediments to women’s sexual and reproductive autonomy. In Unravelling Taboos: Gender and Sexuality in Namibia; Legal Assistance Centre: Windhoek, Namibia, 2007; pp. 234–254. [Google Scholar]
- United Nation Population Fund UNFPA. Programme of Action-Adopted. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Population and Development, Cairo, Egypt, 5–13 September 1994. Available online: https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/event-pdf/PoA_en.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2020).
- United Nation Population Fund UNFPA. Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights: An Essential Element of Universal Health Coverage Background Document for the Nairobi Summit on ICPD25—Accelerating the Promise; UNFPA: New York, NY, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.unfpa.org/featured-publication/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and-rights-essential-element-universal-health (accessed on 11 June 2020).
- Chapagain, M. Conjugal power relations and couples’ participation in reproductive health decision-making: Exploring the links in Nepal. Gend. Technol. Dev. 2006, 10, 159–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Price, N.L.; Hawkins, K. A conceptual framework for the social analysis of reproductive health. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 2007, 25, 24. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Granek, L.; Nakash, O. The impact of militarism, patriarchy, and culture on Israeli Women’s reproductive health and well-being. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2017, 24, 893–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gilbert, L.; Walker, L. Treading the path of least resistance: HIV/AIDS and social inequalities—A South African case study. Soc. Sci. Med. 2002, 54, 1093–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pettifor, A.E.; Measham, D.M.; Rees, H.V.; Padian, N.S. Sexual power and HIV risk, South Africa. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wyatt, G.E.; Carmona, J.V.; Loeb, T.B.; Guthrie, D.; Chin, D.; Gordon, G. Factors affecting HIV contraceptive decision-making among women. Sex Roles 2000, 42, 495–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osuafor, G.N.; Maputle, S.M.; Ayiga, N. Factors related to married or cohabiting women’s decision to use modern contraceptive methods in Mahikeng, South Africa. Afr. J. Prim. Health Care Fam. Med. 2018, 10, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ogunjuyigbe, P.O.; Adeyemi, E.O. Women’s sexual control within conjugal union: Implications for HIV/AIDS infection and control in a metropolitan city. Demogr. Res. 2005, 12, 29–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carroll, J.J.; Ngure, K.; Heffron, R.; Curran, K.; Mugo, N.R.; Baeten, J.M. Gendered differences in the perceived risks and benefits of oral PrEP among HIV-serodiscordant couples in Kenya. AIDS Care 2016, 28, 1000–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dyson, T.; Moore, M. On kinship structure, female autonomy, and demographic behavior in India. Popul. Dev. Rev. 1983, 9, 35–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Acharya, D.R.; Bell, J.S.; Simkhada, P.; Van Teijlingen, E.R.; Regmi, P.R. Women’s autonomy in household decision-making: A demographic study in Nepal. Reprod. Health 2010, 7, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Orubuloye, I.O.; Oguntimehin, F.; Sadiq, T. Women’s role in reproductive health decision making and vulnerability to STD and HIV/AIDS in Ekiti, Nigeria. Health Transit. Rev. 1997, 7, 329–336. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Atteraya, M.S.; Kimm, H.; Song, I.H. Women’s autonomy in negotiating safer sex to prevent HIV: Findings from the 2011 Nepal demographic and health survey. AIDS Educ. Prev. 2014, 26, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sumri, H.H. A National Study: The Effect of Egyptian Married Women’s Decision-Making Autonomy on the use of Modern Family Planning Methods. Afr. J. Reprod. Health 2015, 19, 68–77. [Google Scholar]
- Do, M.; Kurimoto, N. Women’s empowerment and choice of contraceptive methods in selected African countries. Int. Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health 2012, 38, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bloom, S.S.; Griffiths, P.L. Female autonomy as a contributing factor to women’s HIV-related knowledge and behaviour in three culturally contrasting states in India. J. Biosoc. Sci. 2007, 39, 557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jewkes, R.K.; Dunkle, K.; Nduna, M.; Shai, N. Intimate partner violence, relationship power inequity, and incidence of HIV infection in young women in South Africa: A cohort study. Lancet 2010, 376, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- National Department of Health (NDoH); Statistics South Africa (Stats SA); South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC); ICF. South Africa Demographic and Health Survey 2016; NdoH: Pretoria, South Africa; SAMRC: Cape Town, South Africa; Stats SA: Pretoria, South Africa; ICF: Rockville, MD, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- UNAIDS. South Africa. 2020. Available online: https://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/southafrica (accessed on 9 June 2020).
- The South African National AIDS Council SANAC. South Africa’s National Strategic Plan for HIV, TB and STIs 2017–2022; SANAC: Pretoria, South Africa, 2017; Available online: https://sanac.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/NSP_FullDocument_FINAL-1.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2020).
- Holmes, K.K.; Levine, R.; Weaver, M. Effectiveness of condoms in preventing sexually transmitted infections. Bull. World Health Organ. 2004, 82, 454–461. [Google Scholar]
- Senarath, U.; Gunawardena, N.S. Women’s autonomy in decision making for health care in South Asia. Asia Pac. J. Public Health 2009, 21, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marlow, H.M.; Maman, S.; Groves, A.K.; Moodley, D. Fertility intent and contraceptive decision-making among HIV positive and negative antenatal clinic attendees in Durban, South Africa. Health Care Women Int. 2012, 33, 342–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pinkerton, S.D.; Abramson, P.R. Decision making and personality factors in sexual risk-taking for HIV/AIDS: A theoretical integration. Personal. Individ. Differ. 1995, 19, 713–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNAIDS. A Snapshot of Men and HIV in South Africa; UNAIDS: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017; Available online: https://www.unaids.org/en/file/111992/download?token=HCocZ_Hh (accessed on 22 June 2020).
- Muula, A.S. HIV infection and AIDS among young women in South Africa. Croat. Med. J. 2008, 49, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moyo, W.; Levandowski, B.A.; MacPhail, C.; Rees, H.; Pettifor, A. Consistent condom use in South African youth’s most recent sexual relationships. AIDS Behav. 2008, 12, 431–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Langen, T.T. Gender power imbalance on women’s capacity to negotiate self-protection against HIV/AIDS in Botswana and South Africa. Afr. Health Sci. 2005, 5, 188–197. [Google Scholar]
- Mumtaz, Z.; Slaymaker, E.; Salway, S. Condom use in Uganda and Zimbabwe: Exploring the influence of gendered access to resources and couple-level dynamics. In A Focus on Gender: Collected Papers on Gender Using DHS Data; ORC Macro: Calverton, MD, USA, 2005; pp. 117–145. [Google Scholar]
- Ung, M.; Boateng, G.O.; Armah, F.A.; Amoyaw, J.A.; Luginaah, I.; Kuuire, V. Negotiation for safer sex among married women in Cambodia: The role of women’s autonomy. J. Biosoc. Sci. 2014, 46, 90–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, L.; Pettifor, A.; Maman, S.; Sibeko, J.; MacPhail, C. Concerns about partner infidelity are a barrier to adoption of HIV-prevention strategies among young South African couples. Cult. Health Sex. 2014, 16, 792–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tabana, H.; Doherty, T.; Rubenson, B.; Jackson, D.; Ekström, A.M.; Thorson, A. ‘Testing together challenges the relationship’: Consequences of HIV testing as a couple in a high HIV prevalence setting in rural South Africa. PloS ONE 2013, 8, e66390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tenkorang, E.Y. Negotiating safer sex among married women in Ghana. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2012, 41, 1353–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vrana-Diaz, C.J.; Korte, J.E.; Gebregziabher, M.; Richey, L.; Selassie, A.; Sweat, M.; Gichangi, A. Relationship Gender Equality and Couples’ Uptake of Oral Human Immunodeficiency Virus Self-Testing Kits Delivered by Pregnant Women in Kenya. Sex. Transm. Dis. 2019, 46, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stevens, D.R.; Vrana, C.J.; Dlin, R.E.; Korte, J.E. A global review of HIV self-testing: Themes and implications. AIDS Behav. 2018, 22, 497–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harichund, C.; Moshabela, M.; Kunene, P.; Abdool Karim, Q. Acceptability of HIV self-testing among men and women in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. AIDS Care 2019, 31, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Closson, K.; Dietrich, J.J.; Beksinska, M.; Gibbs, A.; Hornschuh, S.; Smith, T.; Smit, J.; Gray, G.; Ndung’u, T.; Brockman, M.; et al. Measuring sexual relationship power equity among young women and young men South Africa: Implications for gender-transformative programming. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0221554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peltzer, K.; Sikwane, E.; Majaja, M. Factors associated with short-course antiretroviral prophylaxis (dual therapy) adherence for PMTCT in Nkangala district, South Africa. Acta Paediatr. 2011, 100, 1253–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ford, C.; Chibwesha, C.J.; Winston, J.; Jacobs, C.; Lubeya, M.K.; Musonda, P.; Stringer, J.S.; Chi, B.H. Women’s decision-making and uptake of services to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission in Zambia. AIDS Care 2018, 30, 426–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variables | Frequency | Percentage | Condom Use | Tested for HIV | Drugs Used to Avoid Transmission | Use of HIV Test Kits |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | ||||||
15–24 | 2913 | 34.2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
25–34 | 2692 | 31.6 | 0.58 ( 0.51–0.66) *** | 5.73 (4.84–6.84) *** | 2.64 (2.02–3.46) *** | 1.17 (1.01–1.34) * |
35–44 | 1996 | 23.4 | 0.58 (0.50–0.67) *** | 5.40 (4.42–6.59) *** | 1.99 (1.50–2.63) *** | 1.10 (0.94–1.30) |
45+ | 913 | 10.7 | 0.46 (0.38–0.59) *** | 3.24 (2.56–4.09) *** | 1.53 (1.09–2.20) * | 0.86 (0.69–1.07) |
Mean ± SD | 30.21 ± 9.86 | |||||
Place of residence | ||||||
Urban | 4805 | 56.4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Rural | 3709 | 43.6 | 0.85 (0.75–0.96) *** | 0.84 (0.71–0.98) * | 0.84 (0.65–1.07) | 0.78 (0.68–0.89) *** |
Educational Status | ||||||
No education | 190 | 2.2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Primary | 862 | 10.1 | 1.32 (0.87–1.99) | 1.49 (0.99–2.25) | 1.21 (0.63–2.31) | 0.90 (0.52–1.52) |
Secondary | 6581 | 77.3 | 1.84 (1.25–2.72) *** | 2.39 (1.61–3.54) *** | 1.49 (0.81–2.75) | 1.35 (0.82–2.22) |
Higher | 881 | 10.3 | 1.87 (1.22–2.85) *** | 4.16 (2.59–6.70) *** | 3.58 (1.64–7.78) *** | 2.77 (1.65–4.65) *** |
Ethnicity | ||||||
Black/African | 7359 | 86.4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
White | 214 | 2.5 | 0.22 (0.14–0.35) *** | 0.46 (0.31–0.69) *** | 0.45 (0.25–0.81) ** | 0.80 (0.58–1.11) |
Coloured | 848 | 10.0 | 0.33 (0.27–0.40) *** | 0.98 (0.78–1.23) | 0.44 (0.25–0.81) *** | 0.78 (0.65–0.94) ** |
Indian/Asian | 88 | 1.0 | 0.29 (0.15–0.57) *** | 0.41 (0.24–0.70) *** | 2.12 (0.50–8.91) | 0.87 (0.54–1.40) |
Other | 5 | 0.1 | 0.34 (0.04–3.08) | 0.10 (0.02–0.65) * | 0.04 (0.00–0.47) ** | 0.74 (0.06–9.30) |
Wealth index | ||||||
Poorest | 1763 | 20.7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Poorer | 1865 | 21.9 | 1.03 (0.87–1.21) | 1.17 (0.96–1.42) | 0.96 (0.71–1.29) | 1.41 (1.13–1.74) ** |
Middle | 1956 | 23.0 | 1.13 (0.95–1.35) | 1.21 (0.98–1.50) | 1.21 (0.85–1.70) | 1.69 (1.36–2.09) *** |
Richer | 1733 | 20.4 | 1.18 (0.97–1.45) | 0.96 (0.75–1.22) | 1.30 (0.88–1.92) | 2.05 (1.63–2.59) *** |
Richest | 1197 | 14.1 | 0.83 (0.65–1.05) | 0.60 (0.47–0.78) *** | 0.83 (0.54–1.30) | 2.40 (1.83–3.08) *** |
Employment status | ||||||
No | 5774 | 67.8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Yes | 2740 | 32.2 | 1.12 (1.00–1.26) * | 2.06 (1.71–2.47) *** | 1.34 (1.04–1.72) * | 1.50 (1.32–1.70) *** |
Reading newspaper or magazine | ||||||
Not at all | 3233 | 38.0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Less than once a week | 2236 | 26.3 | 1.12 (1.02–1.34) * | 1.09 (0.91–1.28) | 1.25 (0.96–1.62) | 1.40 (1.19–1.62) *** |
At least once a week | 3045 | 35.8 | 1.22 (1.10–1.40) ** | 1.05 (0.89–1.24) | 1.30 (1.00–1.70) * | 1.80 (1.54–2.08) *** |
Listening to radio | ||||||
Not at all | 2649 | 31.1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Less than once a week | 1390 | 16.3 | 1.01 (0.85–1.20) | 0.87 (0.71–1.05) | 1.12 (0.82–1.54) | 1.13 (0.92–1.34) |
At least once a week | 4475 | 52.6 | 1.06 (0.93–1.20) | 1.07 (0.92–1.25) | 1.10 (0.87–1.41) | 1.36 (1.17–1.57) *** |
Watching television | ||||||
Not at all | 1549 | 18.2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Less than once a week | 823 | 9.7 | 1.19 (0.95–1.48) | 0.98 (0.76–1.26) | 0.72 (0.49–1.07) | 1.35 (1.05–1.74) * |
At least once a week | 6142 | 72.1 | 1.08 (0.92–1.27) | 0.97 (0.80–1.17) | 0.91 (0.67–1.23) | 0.99 (0.81–1.22) |
Decision Making Score | Condom Use | Tested for HIV | Drugs Used to Avoid Transmission | Use of HIV Test Kits |
---|---|---|---|---|
Decision-making power | ||||
Low | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Moderate | 0.84 (0.52–1.35) | 1.24 (0.48–3.20) | 0.58 (0.25–1.34) | 0.70 (0.45–1.05) |
High | 3.05 (2.60–3.58) *** | 0.24 (0.18–0.33) *** | 0.56 (0.39–0.80) ** | 0.51 (0.44–60) *** |
Decision-Making Variables | Frequency (%) | Condom Use | Tested for HIV | Drugs Used to Avoid Transmission | Use of HIV Test Kits |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Decision makers for contraception | |||||
Respondent Alone | 589 (38.5%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Husband or partner someone else or others | 179 (11.7%) | 0.92 (0.52–1.62) | 0.87 (0.26–2.86) | 2.22 (0.44–11.28) | 1.29 (0.73–2.28) |
Respondent and Husband/partner | 760 (49.8%) | 0.99 (0.68–1.44) | 1.33 (0.59–3.01) | 1.24 (0.47–3.26) | 1.38 (0.94–2.01) |
Person who decides on the respondent’s health care | |||||
Respondent Alone | 1068 (37.7%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Husband or partner someone else or others | 186 (6.6%) | 0.96 (0.39–2.38) | 1.74 (0.19–18.06) | 0.43 (0.09–1.98) | 0.49 (0.18–1.39) |
Respondent and Husband/partner | 1576 (55.7%) | 0.95 (0.62–1.45) | 0.41 (0.15–1.06) | 5.17 (1.46–18.24) ** | 1.09 (0.72–1.67) |
Person who usually decides on large household purchases | |||||
Respondent Alone | 574 (20.3%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Husband or partner someone else or others | 221 (7.8%) | 0.58 (0.23–1.47) | 0.29 (0.07–1.18) | 5.32 (0.42–67.42) | 0.68 (0.26–1.81) |
Respondent and Husband/partner | 2035 (71.9%) | 0.72 (0.45–1.14) | 1.35 (0.47–3.91) | 0.64 (0.21–1.97) | 0.88 (0.55–1.41) |
Person who usually decides on visits to family or relatives | |||||
Respondent Alone | 723 (25.5%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Husband or partner someone else or others | 181 (6.4%) | 0.97 (0.40–2.40) | 0.62 (0.11–3.58) | 0.18 (0.03–0.88) * | 1.84 (0.76–4.45) |
Respondent and Husband/partner | 1926 (68.1%) | 0.94 (0.60–1.46) | 0.69 (0.25–1.95) | 0.83 (0.27–2.50) | 1.04 (0.65–1.64) |
Person who usually decides how to spend respondents’ earnings | |||||
Respondent Alone | 386 (31.4%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Husband or partner someone else or others | 69 (5.6%) | 0.80 (0.39–1.86) | 6.17 (0.67–57.06) | 0.34 (0.05–2.24) | 0.67 (0.28–1.62) |
Respondent and Husband/partner | 776 (63.0%) | 0.99 (0.65–1.54) | 2.41 (0.97–6.05) * | 0.95 (0.33–2.75) | 0.88 (0.57–1.36) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kabir, R.; Alradie-Mohamed, A.; Ferdous, N.; Vinnakota, D.; Arafat, S.M.Y.; Mahmud, I. Exploring Women’s Decision-Making Power and HIV/AIDS Prevention Practices in South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 16626. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416626
Kabir R, Alradie-Mohamed A, Ferdous N, Vinnakota D, Arafat SMY, Mahmud I. Exploring Women’s Decision-Making Power and HIV/AIDS Prevention Practices in South Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(24):16626. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416626
Chicago/Turabian StyleKabir, Russell, Angi Alradie-Mohamed, Nahida Ferdous, Divya Vinnakota, S. M. Yasir Arafat, and Ilias Mahmud. 2022. "Exploring Women’s Decision-Making Power and HIV/AIDS Prevention Practices in South Africa" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 24: 16626. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192416626