Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (15)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, K.
Right arrow Articles by Whitworth, J. A. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mitchell, K.
Right arrow Articles by Whitworth, J. A. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Education Research, Vol. 16, No. 4, 411-423, August 2001
© 2001 Oxford University Press

Community-based HIV/AIDS education in rural Uganda: which channel is most effective?

K. Mitchell1, S. Nakamanya, A. Kamali and J. A. G. Whitworth

MRC Programme on AIDS in Uganda/UVRI, PO Box 49, Entebbe, Uganda

A process evaluation was conducted to evaluate four channels (drama, video, community educators and leaflets) used in a community-based IEC (Information, Education and Communication) HIV/AIDS intervention in rural Uganda. Semi-structured interviews (n = 37) and focus groups (n = 3) were held with community members working as field staff. In addition, two questionnaire surveys (n = 105 and n = 69) and eight focus groups were conducted with the target community. Over 85% of the community had seen at least one drama or video show. They rated them as relevant and realistic. However, the messages `taken home' were not always those intended by the plays. Access to community educators (CEs) was not equal. The CEs had a tendency to avoid the educated, rich and their older relatives. Those who had met with a CE rated them as knowledgeable and trustworthy, but felt they would rather be taught by a trained health worker. Around 80% of the community said they had seen the leaflets, but had not necessarily read them. Although appreciated by some as reference material, low literacy levels and a lack of reading culture meant that some leaflets may have gone astray. These findings suggest that a multi-channel approach may be required to overcome weaknesses inherent in individual channels.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
M. L. Ybarra, N. Emenyonu, D. Nansera, J. Kiwanuka, and D. R. Bangsberg
Health information seeking among Mbararan adolescents: results from the Uganda Media and You survey
Health Educ. Res., April 1, 2008; 23(2): 249 - 258.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Health Educ ResHome page
J. Kinsman, A. Kamali, E. Kanyesigye, I. Kamulegeya, V. Basajja, J. Nakiyingi, K. Schenk, and J. Whitworth
Quantitative process evaluation of a community-based HIV/AIDS behavioural intervention in rural Uganda
Health Educ. Res., April 1, 2002; 17(2): 253 - 265.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.