A large study by the Rural AIDS & Development Action Research Programme (RADAR), of the University of the Witwatersrand further analysed the reasons why some communities are harder hit that others.
This time, the survey was in eight villages within a twenty kilometer radius of each other in the rural district of Sekhukhuneland, Limpopo province. Although the overall prevalence was much lower (10.8%) than in Vulindlela, it ranged up to 46.2% in some of the neighbourhoods under study.
According to Dr. Rico Euripidou, research manager for RADAR and who presented the study on behalf of the study’s lead author, Dr. Paul Pronyk, studies in other countries have shown that it is “not uncommon to find a 4-10 fold variation [in prevalence] over a 20km radius.” These differences cannot be attributed to differences in HIV subtype (within the same region or country), nor can they be totally explained by differences in sexual behaviour.
“Most often, differences in prevalence are not explored,” said Euripidou “or they may be broadly attributed to rural-urban geography or proximity to a trading centre.”
But there may be other structural factors (such as access to health services, circumcision rates, cultural practices or social norms, development, legal and policy issues) that put residents of some communities at greater risk than others.
So the researchers collected socio-demographic, mobility, sexual behaviour and HIV prevalence data on 2488 randomly selected people between the ages of 14-35 years to determine structural factors that could influence a community’s HIV prevalence.
They decided the following structural factors merited closer attention:
- Levels of bar (or “shebeen”) activity = numbers of bars + average number of clients + average monthly alcohol intake.
- Local availability of sex workers = total number of sex workers per village at all bars on average weekend evening.
- Ease of access mine/main town = distance + tar road + public transport (by village).
- Mobility (per subsection of each village): Percentage of travel to a city = proportion of residents who stayed overnight in a major city in the past year, and percentage of out migrants = proportion residents listed as permanent residents who are currently sleeping at home.
- Population stability = proportion resident for less than ten years.
- Wealth = principle components analysis score form value of selected household assets, quality of housing conditions, income/human capital, food security and social status.
- Education level = proportion of 10 to 35 year-olds who have completed secondary school.
- Social capital = index based on social network membership + response to questions on: levels of trust, reciprocity, solidarity in time of crisis, collective action (positive (marches/rallies) and negative (crime rate = police statistics of the total number of serious and violent crimes in an entire village over a twelve month period)
Based on the findings of the first questionnaire, a second survey was constructed and conducted on 825 community women. In addition, communities were profiled — which included surveys of the local bar with owner and patron interviews.
The study found a number of individual risk factors for higher HIV risk including older age for both sexes, sex before age 16 for males (p=<0.001), and higher lifetime numbers of partners for females (p=<0.001).
Among structural factors, easier access to a trading centre (p=0.02), higher proportions of short-term residents (p=<0.001), and lower levels of social capital (p<0.001 men, p=0.02 women) were associated with higher HIV prevalence in both sexes. Among males only, higher HIV prevalence was seen among communities with easier access to a local mine (p=0.05), a higher density and activity of local bars (p=0.004), a higher numbers of sex workers per village (p=<0.001), and lower proportions of out-migrants (p=0.002).
“Efforts to alter structural factors have the potential to change the vulnerability of whole populations to HIV", concluded Dr. Euripidou, "which is critical in a generalized epidemic.”