Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Cross sectional study on attitudes of Serbian mothers with preschool children: should a HIV-positive female teacher be allowed to continue teaching in school?

  • Zorica Terzic-Supic1Email author,
  • Milena Santric-Milicevic1,
  • Momcilo Mirkovic2,
  • Svetlana Karic3 and
  • Ivan Soldatovic4
BMC International Health and Human Rights201515:31

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12914-015-0069-4

Received: 20 August 2014

Accepted: 31 October 2015

Published: 17 November 2015

Abstract

Background

HIV/AIDS continues to be a serious challenge to public health and human rights in the new millennium. The objective of this survey was to identify the correlation between socio-demographic characteristics and knowledge, attitudes and practices of mothers with preschool children, and their attitude towards whether a HIV-positive female teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school.

Method

This survey was additional study analysis of the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) in the Republic of Serbia conducted in the period November–December 2010 following the UNICEF methodology. Women deemed eligible for the survey were those who had children under five, had never lost a child, were not pregnant at the time of inquiry and who had a clear attitude (“yes” or “no”) towards whether a HIV-positive female teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school. The criteria were met by 2309 out of 2992 interviewed women. Pearson chi-square and t-test were used to analyse the differences in respondents’ attitude towards whether a HIV-positive female teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school. Variables that were significantly associated with the dependent variable (p < 0.05) were entered into a multiple logistic regression model.

Results

The respondents who were more likely to think that a HIV positive teacher should not be allowed to teach in school were those: who did not know that a healthy-looking person can be HIV-positive (OR = 1.84; 95 % CI = 1.19–2.83), who would not buy (OR = 29.90; 95 % CI = 22.52–39.71) or did not know/were not sure (OR = 2.21; 95 % CI = 1.46–3.33) whether they would buy vegetables from a HIV-positive vendor and women who did not know/were not sure (OR = 2.97; 95 % CI = 1.64–5.39) whether they would take care of a family member sick with AIDS in their own home.

Conclusion

Misconceptions about HIV transmission represent a major barrier to combating HIV/AIDS epidemic and HIV/AIDS-related stigma. It is, therefore, necessary to continue education and raising awareness of human rights both among the population living with HIV and the general population.

Keywords

HIV Attitude Stigma Mother Women, Preschool children

Background

Human immunodeficiency virus infection/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) is still a serious challenge to public health and society in general, despite notable progress in information, diagnostics, treatment and prevention of the disease in the last two decades [13].

Knowledge, Attitude and Practice studies (KAP studies) on HIV/AIDS provide an insight into the current knowledge, attitudes and practices [4] of the general population or of a particular population group, help establish ‘educational diagnosis’ of a community [5] and constitute a basis for planning activities aimed at the prevention and control of HIV [6]. KAP studies also show differences in knowledge and practice, can increase the level of knowledge about HIV/AIDS, and can be a powerful tool to encourage positive attitudes and safe practices in the general population [7, 8]. These studies can also indicate the level of challenge to be faced in the implementation of intervention strategies [8].

Although there is now greater understanding of the disease and its transmission than in past decades, efforts to reduce stigma have shown only moderate success [9]. A number of studies show that stigmatisation – the phenomenon where a person or a group is considered socially unacceptable – is much more pronounced when it is associated with HIV/AIDS than when it is related to other conditions such as mental illness or other physiological health problems [1012]. Combating stigma and discrimination of persons living with HIV is one of the five imperatives that must be put into practice to ensure sustainability of the initiatives aimed at curbing HIV/AIDS epidemic [13].

Various factors contribute to the stigmatisation of HIV-positive persons, including lack of understanding and knowledge about the disease, misconceptions about HIV transmission, inaccessibility of treatment, the way in which the media report on the epidemic, AIDS incurability, prejudices and fear of certain population groups such as men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, commercial sex workers and other vulnerable groups such as prisoners [1416]. It is believed that social inequality and the imbalance in economic and political power reinforce stigma [17].

Advances in health care, increasing life expectancy of HIV-positive persons, as well as the fact that HIV/AIDS has become a chronic rather than a fatal disease, have resulted in a desire among persons living with HIV to continue to work [18]. However, along with social stigmatisation, these people face abuse by co-workers and discriminatory behaviour which can result in job-loss leading to unfavourable socio-economic status and inability to meet one’s own basic needs [11, 19, 20].

A limited number of intervention studies targeting HIV/AIDS stigma reduction indicated that people living with HIV face stigma in the workplace [14, 2123]. Most of the studies of HIV/AIDS related stigma in the workplace have been conducted in developed countries and only a small number of surveys and interventions in underdeveloped or developing countries such as Kenya and Zambia [2123].

Serbia is a country with a low prevalence of HIV (0.1 % in 2011); HIV epidemic in Serbia is considered to be at a low level and stable/well controlled [24, 25]. Since the first case of HIV infection was registered in Serbia in 1985 [26], numerous activities aimed at combating HIV/AIDS have taken place, including the establishment of NGOs such as the Association against AIDS – JAZAS [27], Center for Affirmation of Positive Living – “Q club” [28], Belgrade Center for Human Rights [29], Coalition against Discrimination [30], Union of Serbian organisations protecting persons living with HIV [31], Charitable Fund of the Serbian Orthodox Church “Covekoljublje” (Eng. philanthropy) [32]. Different projects and activities of NGOs have been implemented to strengthen the capacity for HIV/AIDS prevention among vulnerable groups, providing care and support to persons living with HIV, alleviating HIV/AIDS-related stigma and discrimination, and promoting the importance of testing and early detection of HIV followed by quality counseling. Antiretroviral therapy is available to all who need it and is funded by the Republic Health Insurance Fund. The Strategy on HIV Infection and AIDS [31], which is in line with the relevant international and national strategic documents, was adopted in 2012. One of the specific objectives of the Strategy is “creating discrimination and stigmatisation-free environments for persons living with HIV and other vulnerable and marginalised groups” [31].

There have not been many studies dealing with the intersection of HIV-related stigma and gender. In a meta-analysis of demographic correlations with HIV-related stigma among persons living with HIV in North America, only three out of 24 studies examined gender, which suggests a need to explore further this topic [21]. None of the studies carried out in Serbia has been specifically focused on the stigmatisation of HIV-positive women.

Some studies show that social acceptance is particularly important to women living with HIV, given that they rely on social support more than men in the same position [33, 34]. Hence, understanding by other women is particularly important in terms of acceptance and providing support to HIV-positive women.

The objective of this survey was to identify the correlation between socio-demographic characteristics and knowledge, attitudes and practices of mothers with preschool children, and their attitude towards whether a HIV-positive female teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school.

Methods

This survey was based on secondary data analysis of a comprehensive Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS). MICS was conducted in the Republic of Serbia in the period November–December 2010 by the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia, with the financial and technical support of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

Sample design and the sample

The national sample for the Serbian MICS was designed to provide estimates for a large number of indicators on the situation of children, women and young men at the national level, for urban and rural areas, and for four regions: Belgrade, Vojvodina, Sumadija and Western Serbia, and Southern and Eastern Serbia. The urban and rural domains within 25 areas were identified as the main sampling strata, and the sample was selected in two stages. Within each stratum, a specified number of census enumeration areas were selected systematically with probability proportional to size. After a household listing was carried out within the selected enumeration areas, the listed households were divided into households with and without children under five, and a separate systematic sample of households was selected for each group [35]. At the national level, a total of 6885 households were selected: 3650 households with children under five and 3235 households without children under five. Part of the original MICS database referring to women of reproductive age with children under five was used in this survey. Women deemed eligible for the survey were those who had children under five, had never lost a child, were not pregnant at the time of the inquiry and who had a clear attitude (“yes” or “no”) towards whether a HIV-positive female teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school. The criteria were met by 2309 out of 2992 interviewed women.

The Serbian MICS protocol was approved on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding between the UNICEF Serbia and the Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia [36]. Before the survey, every household received the letter that contained relevant details regarding the background and the objectives. Anonymity, confidentiality and privacy of data were explained and guaranteed for all participants in the survey. It was emphasised that the collected data would serve exclusively for statistical analysis, and their publication would be made only in the aggregate (summary) form by certain demographic and economic categories [37]. Prior face-to-face interview, it was emphasised that all the information “will remain strictly confidential, and answers will never be shared with anyone than our project team” [35]. The informed consent of participants was noted in the questionnaire. The undisclosed personal data were obtained from the UNICEF.

Study instrument and variables

The data were obtained through face-to-face interviews using the Questionnaire for Individual Women, which was administered to women aged 15–45 years. The questionnaire included 13 modules that contained questions about socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents; child mortality; sexual behavior; and knowledge, attitude and practice about HIV transmission.

The independent variables (yes/no, do not know/not sure/depends answers) included the socio-demographic characteristics (age, region, urban/rural area, marital status, educational level and welfare index), sexual behaviour (use of condom first time they had sex), knowledge (such as, healthy-looking person can be HIV-positive, HIV cannot be transmitted e.g., by mosquito bite, supernatural means), attitude (such as, willingness to take care of a family member sick with AIDS in one’s own home and not to keep the HIV status of a family member a secret), and practice towards persons living with HIV/AIDS (such as, sharing food with a HIV-positive person or buying fresh vegetables from a HIV-positive vendor). According to their attitude towards whether a HIV-positive teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school or not, the respondents were divided into two groups.

Statistical analysis

The dependent variable in the study was the question ‘Should a HIV-positive female teacher be allowed to continue teaching in school?’ The independent variables were socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge, attitude and practice towards persons living with HIV/AIDS. Variable data were presented as frequencies (%) for categorical variables and means ± standard deviation (SD) for interval variables. Pearson chi-square and t- test were used to analyse the differences in respondents’ attitude towards dependent variable according to respondents’ characteristics, knowledge and practices, and their attitudes towards HIV/AIDS. All variables that were significantly associated with the dependent variable (p < 0.05) were included in a multiple logistic regression model (18 variables out of 19). Multivariate regression modeling was performed in two steps. In the first step, univariate significant socio-demographic variables were included in the model (Enter method). The second step (Forward stepwise method) included practice, knowledge and attitude variables. All p values less than 0.05 were considered significant. All statistical analysis were performed using SPSS 20 (IBM corp.).

Results

The number of women participating in the survey of the attitudes of Serbian women towards whether a HIV-positive female teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school was 2309. The average age of the surveyed women was 31.85 ± 6.75.

Assessment of knowledge, attitudes and practices

All the surveyed women (2309) had heard of AIDS. Out of that number, 1411 (62.4 %) of them used a condom the first time they had sex. The majority of the respondents knew that the risk of HIV transmission can be significantly reduced by having one faithful uninfected partner – 2062 (89.3 %) and by using a condom each time – 2123 (92.0 %). The respondents were generally aware that HIV/AIDS cannot be transmitted by supernatural means (2199 or 95.2 %), by mosquito bite (1726 or 74.8 %) or by sharing food with a HIV-positive person (1735 or 75.4 %). Also, 1907 (82.6 %) knew that a healthy or healthy-looking person can be HIV-positive. When it comes to mother-to-child transmission, the majority of the respondents knew that a mother can transmit the HIV to her baby during pregnancy (2022 or 87.6 %), delivery (1871 or 81.0 %) and through breastfeeding (1652 or 71.5 %). Only 823 (35.6 %) respondents would buy fresh vegetables from a HIV-positive vendor and 896 (38.8 %) would keep the HIV status of a family member a secret, whereas 2145 (92.9 %) would take care of a family member sick with AIDS in their own home. Finally, 1142 (49.5 %) respondents agreed that a HIV-positive female teacher should be allowed to keep teaching in school, whilst the remaining 1167 (50.5 %) that she should not be allowed to do so.

A statistically significant difference between the respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics, age, region and area (urban vs. rural) in which they live, educational level and wealth index quintile, was reflected in their attitude towards whether a HIV-positive female teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school (Table 1). Respondents who thought that a HIV-positive female teacher should continue teaching in school were older women, 50 % of them lived in Belgrade, AP Vojvodina and urban areas throughout Serbia. Two-thirds of them had post-secondary education and were in households within the richest wealth index quintile. Approximately the same number of respondents living with and without a partner believed that the teacher should continue teaching. Around 80 % of respondents with only primary education and living in households within the poorest wealth index quintile thought that a HIV-positive teacher should not be allowed to continue teaching in school.
Table 1

Socio-demographic variables in relation to the respondents’ attitude towards whether a HIV-positive female teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school

Socio-demographic variablesa

Should a HIV-positive female teacher be allowed to continue teaching in school?

p value

Yes

No

Age

 

32.20 ± 6,16

31.52 ± 7.27

0.016b

Region

Central Serbia

553 (44.7)

685 (55.3)

<0.001c

Belgrade

202 (56.9)

153 (43.1)

AP Vojvodina

387 (54.1)

329 (45.9)

Area

Urban

726 (55.3)

588 (44.7)

<0.001c

Rural

416 (41.8)

579 (58.2)

Currently married or living with a partner

Yes

1066 (49.4)

1094 (50.6)

0,696c

No

76 (51.0)

73 (49.0)

Level of education

Primary

72 (22.7)

245 (77.3)

<0.001c

Secondary

643 (47.1)

723 (52.9)

Higher/faculty

427 (69.2)

190 (30.8)

Wealth index quintiles

Poorest

106 (31.6)

229 (68.4)

<0.001c

Second Middle

176 (39.1)

274 (60.9)

Middle

228 (49.1)

236 (50.9)

Fourth

266 (54.8)

219 (45.2)

Richest

366 (63.7)

209 (36.3)

aResults are presented as Mean ± SD or n (%), bT test, cChi-square test

The statistically significant difference between the attitudes and knowledge and practice of the respondents about HIV/AIDS was reflected in their attitude towards whether a HIV-positive teacher should be allowed to teach (Table 2). The negative attitude had respondents who did not use a condom the first time they had sex, and those who did not know that HIV transmission can be avoided by having one faithful uninfected sex partner. and by using condoms. The negative attitude was also expressed by those who did not know that HIV/AIDS cannot be transmitted by supernatural means, by sharing food with a HIV-positive person and by mosquito bite, and by those who did not know that a healthy-looking person can be HIV-positive. More than 80 % of these respondents would not buy fresh vegetables from a HIV-positive vendor and would not allow a HIV-positive teacher to keep teaching in school. Around two-thirds of the respondents would want to keep the HIV status of a family member a secret and would not allow a HIV-positive teacher to continue teaching in school. Half of the respondents who would be willing to take care of a family member sick with AIDS in their own home, they would allow a HIV-positive teacher to continue teaching.
Table 2

Practice and knowledge of the respondents in relation to their attitude towards whether a HIV-positive female teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school

Practice and knowledge about HIV/AIDS

Should a HIV-positive female teacher be allowed to continue teaching in school?

p valueb

Yes

No

 

N (%)

N (%)

Used condom the first time they had sex

Yes

497 (57.3)

371 (42.7)

<0.001

No

630 (44.7)

778 (55.3)

DK

13 (65.0)

7 (35.0)

The risk of HIV transmission can be significantly reduced by having one faithful uninfected partner

Yes

1054 (51.1)

1008 (48.9)

<0.001

No

69 (48.6)

73 (51.4)

DK

19 (18.1)

86 (81.9)

The risk of HIV transmission can be significantly reduced by using condom each time

Yes

1093 (51.5)

1030 (48.5)

<0.001

No

32 (42.1)

44 (57.9)

DK

16 (14.7)

93 (85.3)

HIV can be transmitted by supernatural means

Yes

11 (36.7)

19 (63.3)

<0.001

No

1125 (51.2)

1074 (48.8)

DK

6 (7.5)

74 (92.5)

HIV can be transmitted by mosquito bite

Yes

77 (40.5)

113 (59.5)

<0.001

No

927 (53.7)

799 (46.3)

DK

137 (35.1)

253 (64.9)

HIV can be transmitted by sharing food with a HIV-positive person

Yes

75 (25.9)

215 (74.1)

<0.001

No

1008 (58.1)

727 (41.9)

DK

55 (19.9)

222 (80.1)

A healthy-looking person can be HIV positive

Yes

1036 (54.3)

871 (45.7)

<0.001

No

43 (33.3)

86 (66.7)

DK

63 (23.3)

207 (76.7)

HIV can be transmitted from a mother to her baby during pregnancy

Yes

1024 (50.6)

998 (49.4)

<0.001

No

34 (55.7)

27 (44.3)

DK

84 (37.2)

142 (62.8)

HIV can be transmitted from a mother to her baby during delivery

Yes

956 (51.1)

915 (48.9)

<0.001

No

56 (58.9)

39 (41.1)

DK

130 (37.9)

213 (62.1)

HIV can be transmitted from a mother to her baby through breastfeeding

Yes

822 (49.8)

830 (50.2)

<0.001

No

144 (64.9)

78 (35.1)

DK

176 (40.5)

259 (59.5)

Would you buy fresh vegetables from a HIV-positive vendor?

Yes

740 (89.9)

83 (10.1)

<0.001

No

234 (18.5)

1030 (81.5)

DKa

168 (75.7)

54 (24.3)

Would you want to keep HIV status of a family member a secret?

Yes

428 (41.9)

594 (58.1)

<0.001

Ne

497 (55.5)

399 (44.5)

DKa

217 (55.5)

174 (44.5)

Would you take care of a family member sick with AIDS in your home?

Yes

1107 (51.6)

1038 (48.4)

<0.001

No

7 (21.2)

26 (78.8)

DKa

28 (21.4)

103 (78.6)

DK– Do not know, DKa - Do not know/Not sure/Depends, bChi square test

The predictors of the attitude towards whether a HIV-positive female teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school were shown in Table 3. The respondents with higher level of education were 0.570 times more likely to think that a HIV-positive female teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school. The participants who thought that a HIV-positive female teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school were more likely to know that HIV cannot be transmitted by sharing food with an infected person (0.582 times more),, who would not keep the HIV status of a family member a secret (0.689 times), and who did not know that HIV can be transmitted from a mother to her baby during delivery (0.451 times). The respondents who did not know that a healthy-looking person can be HIV-positive were 1.840 times more likely to think that a HIV-positive teacher should not be allowed to teach. The respondents who would not buy fresh vegetables from a HIV-positive vendor were 30 times more likely to think that a HIV-positive teacher should not be allowed to teach in school. The likelihood for not allowing the teacher to teach was 2.2 times higher for those who did not know/were not sure whether they would buy vegetables from a HIV-positive vendor and was 2.9 times more likely for respondents who did not know/were not sure whether they would take care of a family member sick with AIDS in their own home.
Table 3

Multiple logistic regression model: attitude towards should a HIV-positive female teacher not be allowed to continue teaching in school as a dependent variable

Independent variable

P

OR

OR (95 % CI)

lower

upper

Education level

<0.001

0.570

0.451

0.719

Age

0.079

0.984

0.966

1.002

Wealth index

0.639

1.024

0.926

1.133

Region

 Central Serbia (reference category)

 

1a

  

 Belgrade

0.177

1.207

0.918

1.587

 AP Vojvodina

0.083

1.411

0.956

2.083

Used condom the first time they had sex

 Yes

 

1

  

 No

0.140

1.212

0.939

1.563

 DK/do not remember

0.214

0.459

0.134

1.569

HIV can be transmitted by sharing food with a HIV-positive person

 Yes

 

1

  

 No

0.004

0.582

0.403

0.843

 DK

0.125

1.518

0.890

2.589

A healthy-looking person can be HIV-positive

 Yes

 

1

  

 No

0.133

1.526

0.879

2.649

 DK

0.005

1.840

1.198

2.827

HIV can be transmitted from a mother to her baby during delivery

 Yes

 

1

  

 No

0.008

0.451

0.251

0.809

 DK

0.848

1.035

0.727

1.474

Would you buy fresh vegetables from a HIV-positive vendor?

 Yes

 

1

  

 No

<0.001

29.902

22.516

39.709

 DK/not sure/depends

<0.001

2.205

1.460

3.332

Would you want to keep HIV status of a family member a secret?

 Yes

 

1

  

 No

0.005

0.689

0.532

0.894

 DK/not sure/depends

0.014

0.649

0.459

0.916

Would you take care of a family member sick with AIDS in your home?

 Yes

 

1

  

 No

0.713

1.202

0.450

3.209

 DK/not sure/depends

<0.001

2.977

1.641

5.399

1a - reference category

Discussion

The lack of knowledge and the misconceptions about HIV/AIDS and its transmission make a significant percentage of the population susceptible to the disease. Adequate knowledge and awareness of a disease are the key prerequisites for its prevention and control, given that adequate knowledge is a basis for adopting the appropriate attitudes and practices [38]. It is estimated that 53 % of Serbian women aged 15–49 have comprehensive knowledge about HIV/AIDS [36]. However, women are in a less favourable position compared to men when it comes to education, employment, income and sexual relationships [39]. Many studies show that social acceptance is important to women living with HIV, given that they rely on social support more than men in the same position [33, 34, 40]. Hence, understanding by other women is particularly essential in terms of acceptance and providing support to HIV positive women.

Compared to the knowledge about HIV/AIDS of women at the national level [35], a higher percentage of women included in this survey knew that a healthy-looking person can be HIV-positive and that HIV transmission can be prevented by having one faithful uninfected sex partner as well as by using a condom every time. A similar percentage knew that HIV/AIDS cannot be transmitted by supernatural means, by sharing food with a HIV-positive person and by mosquito bite [35]. Awareness about mother-to-child HIV transmission is important in the context of ensuring that women undergo testing when they conceive and thus contribute to the prevention of HIV transmission to the baby [33]. A higher percentage of women included in this survey, compared to the percentage at the national level, knew that a mother can transmit HIV to her baby during pregnancy (87.6 % vs. 82.4 %), delivery (81.0 % vs. 76.2 %) and through breastfeeding (71.5 % vs. 68.2 %). The most common discriminatory attitude spotted in this survey, as well as at the national level, was the attitude towards keeping the HIV status of a family member a secret and buying food from a HIV-positive vendor [35].

It is well-known that the lack of knowledge and the misconceptions about HIV transmission, as well as the low level of education, are often sources of fear and negative attitudes towards HIV-positive people [34, 41]. In a national survey conducted between 1991 and 1999 in the USA, one-fifth of adult Americans expressed fear of HIV-positive persons, and roughly one-sixth expressed anger or disgust. The results were similar in 2000 [42]. According to our survey, the respondents with higher level of education, who knew that HIV/AIDS cannot be transmitted by sharing food with an infected person and who would not want to keep the HIV status of a family member a secret, had a positive attitude towards a HIV-positive teacher.

Research shows that increasing knowledge about HIV/AIDS can contribute to the alleviation of HIV/AIDS-associated stigma. It has been noted that families of HIV-positive persons often display initial negative attitudes towards HIV which is altered by means of education, making them more accepting of the family the member living with HIV [4345].

The women participating in our survey who thought that a HIV-positive female teacher should not be allowed to continue teaching in school were those unaware of the fact that a healthy-looking person can be HIV-positive, who were unsure whether they would buy fresh vegetables from a HIV-positive vendor, as well as unsure whether they would take care of a family member sick with AIDS in their own home. A Kaiser Foundation survey in the USA found that 35 % of the respondents would be uncomfortable if their child had a HIV-positive teacher, whereas 34 % claimed they would be very comfortable with that [46]. People who incorrectly believed that certain activities represent a risk for HIV transmission were much more likely to say they would be uncomfortable working with HIV-positive person [46].

Inequalities in social, economic and political power, typical for Serbia in the period of transition [35], form a fertile ground for stigmatisation [16]. HIV-related stigmatisation is more pronounced in societies in which there are other types of stigmatisation [16]. Despite the numerous activities aimed at combating HIV-related stigma and the satisfactory level of knowledge about HIV transmission (as reported by previous surveys conducted in Serbia), there is still a high percentage of population with discriminatory attitude towards HIV positive persons [32, 35]. A umber of studies show that HIV-positive persons often lose employment because of their status, even when they actively contribute to economic well-being of a company [11, 12, 19, 20, 47]. The existence of this phenomenon has been reported in several studies. In a representative sample of 112 HIV-infected patients in the USA, 6 % lost their job within the first six months of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy [48]. Among HIV-seroconverters followed in a French group, 18 % have lost their job during the 2.5 years following HIV infection [49]. The situation is similar in China where 63 % respondents believe that it is not safe to work with a HIV positive person [50]. In the UK, majority would feel comfortable working with a colleague who had HIV and believe that people with HIV deserve the same support and respect as those with cancer [51]. Even though there are no official data for Serbia, Bernays and colleagues [52] have reported that HIV-positive persons have a problem with employment. According to them, “if an employer knows that you are HIV-positive, you will not be given a job, you will be kicked out” and “you will not be given opportunity to work – not here, as this is the Balkans” [52]. In spite of high literacy about how to prevent HIV infection, greater tolerance should be demonstrated towards those who get infected. Otherwise, everyone infected might be seen as irresponsible/reckless/uncaring persons. This may need to be studied with other categories of HIV-infected persons in general.

Several studies show connection among the mental disease, stigma and HIV [18, 53, 54]. Major depressive disorder is three times more common in the HIV-positive population compared to the general population [11, 55, 56]. Conservative values and social norms favor stigmatisation of HIV-infected women, based on their gender and the possibility of conception and transmission of the disease to the baby [56], which makes them reluctant to disclose their HIV status and deprives them of much needed support of the family, friends and community [57]. If the stigma-induced distress was to exceed one’s coping ability [21], then the observed stigmatizing attitudes could lead to adverse psychological outcomes. Such a process needs to be further investigated, particularly among women in Serbia.

Gender inequality, particularly pronounced in developing countries [58, 59], is an additional barrier for eradicating HIV/AIDS-associated stigma. In the context of HIV infection, gender is one of the key predictors of emotional distress in HIV-infected women. This should be taken into account when designing interventions aimed at the improvement of functional status, social support and the level of optimism, which is the subject of well-documented studies [41, 60]. This survey highlights the importance of continuing education (including educational campaigns) about HIV/AIDS transmission and prevention with a view to dispelling myths and misconceptions about HIV/AIDS and encouraging positive attitudes towards persons living with HIV. It is necessary to continue the advocacy against gender inequality, having in mind that women living with HIV are twice as vulnerable because of their sex and their HIV status [61]. Although the Strategy on HIV Infection and AIDS of the Republic of Serbia [32] contains reference to the promotion and protection of the human rights of persons living with HIV and other vulnerable and marginalised groups, it is needed to explicitly focus on HIV-positive women and undertake necessary steps, given that these women have serious existential problems and are constantly avoided and neglected [62].

Limitations

The study limitation is that the knowledge about HIV was assessed on the basis of misconceptions about HIV transmission, which is only one aspect of knowledge about HIV/AIDS. In addition, the existence of HIV-related stigma was assessed on the grounds of personal attitudes of the respondents. However, the responses and the actual practice do not always match [63]. For example, the awareness of that HIV-positive persons should not be discriminated against, might have led interviewed women to give ‘acceptable’ answers, whereas in practice they actively discriminate against persons with HIV (e.g., in health care provision) [64]. Researchers suggest that a stigmatization of an HIV-positive person should be measured on a specialized scale, e.g., Berger HIV Stigma Scale [65, 66]. Also, we could use other variables as dependent such as willingness to take care of a family member sick with AIDS in one’s own home and willingness to keep a secret about the HIV status of a family member.

Despite the above-mentioned limitations, the standardised instrument was used because it enables comparison of the results of the UNICEF surveys conducted in various countries [67].

Conclusion

Insufficient knowledge about HIV/AIDS, discriminatory attitudes and uncertainty about the safety of interacting with persons living with HIV influence the decision whether a HIV-positive teacher should be allowed to continue teaching in school.

Creating an accepting environment in which persons living with HIV do not feel threatened and are not perceived as a threat, can be achieved by increasing knowledge and dispelling myths about HIV/AIDS among the general population, as well as by raising the awareness of HIV-positive persons about their human rights and ‘equipping’ them with skills for fighting against stigmatisation.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank UNICEF for allowing us to use Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey – MICS 4 database.

This work is supported by Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (Grant No. 41004, Contract No. 175042 (2011–2014), Grant No.175087 and Grant No.41029). Special thanks for English review to Mr. Jonathan Erskine, Research Fellow at the Centre for Public Policy and Health, School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham University, UK.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade
(2)
Department for Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Pristina - Kosovska Mitrovica
(3)
Preschool Teacher Training College
(4)
Institute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade

References

  1. Cabezas MC, Fornasini M, Dardenne N, Borja T, Albert A. A cross-sectional study to assess knowledge about HIV/AIDS transmission and prevention measures in company workers in Ecuador. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:139.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. UNAIDS. Global report. UNAIDS report on the global AIDS epidemic. Switzerland. 2012. [http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/publications/2012/name,76121,en.asp]. Accessed 2 Sept 2013.
  3. Cai Y, Shi R, Shen T, Pei B, Jiang X, Ye X, et al. A study of HIV/AIDS related knowledge, attitude and behaviours among female sex workers in Shanghai China. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:377.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Nichter M. Global health: why cultural perceptions, social representations, and biopolitics matter. Tucson: University of Arizona Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  5. Kaliyaperumal K. Guideline for conducting a knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) study. Community Ophthalmol. 2004;4(1):1–9.Google Scholar
  6. Shiferaw Y, Alemu A, Girma A, Getahun A, Kassa A, Gashaw A, et al. Assessment of knowledge, attitude and risk behaviors towards HIV/AIDS and other sexual transmitted infection among preparatory students of Gondar town, north west Ethiopia. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:505.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Thanavanh B, Harun-Or-Rashid M, Kasuya H, Sakamoto J. Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding HIV/AIDS among male high school students in Lao People’s Democratic Republic. J Int AIDS Soc. 2013;16:17387.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen J, Shengli C, Choe M. Who has correct knowledge about HIV/AIDS in China? Asia-Pac Popul J. 2003;18:25–38.Google Scholar
  9. Colbert AM, Kevin H, Kim KH, Susan M, Sereika SM, Erlen JA. An examination of the relationships among gender, health status, social support, and HIV related stigma. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2010;21:302–13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Goffman E. Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1963.Google Scholar
  11. Rao D, Angell B, Lam C, Corrigan P. Stigma in the workplace: employer attitudes about people with HIV in Beijing, Hong Kong, and Chicago. Soc Sci Med. 2008;67:1541–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Odimegwu C, Adedini SA, Ononokpono DN. HIV/AIDS stigma and utilization of voluntary counselling and testing in Nigeria. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:465.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Piot P. AIDS: from crisis management to sustained strategic response. Lancet. 2006;368:526–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Sengupta S, Banks B, Jonas D, Shandor Miles M, Corbie Smith G. HIV interventions to reduce HIV/AIDS stigma: a systematic review. AIDS Behav. 2011;15:1075–87.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Sengupta S, Strauss RP, Miles MS, Roman-Isler M, Banks B, Corbie-Smith G. A conceptual model exploring the relationship between HIV stigma and implementing HIV clinical trials in rural communities of North Carolina. NC Med J. 2010;71:113–22.Google Scholar
  16. Mahajan AP, Sayles JN, Patel VA, Remien RH, Ortez D, Szekers G, et al. Stigma in the HIV/AIDS epidemic: a review of the literature and recommendations for the way forward. AIDS. 2008;22 Suppl 2:S67–79.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Maluwa M, Aggleton P, Parker R. HIV- and AIDS-related stigma, discrimination, and human rights: a critical overview. Health Hum Rights. 2002;6:1–18.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Bashir S. HIV/AIDS stigma at the workplace: exploratory findings from Pakistan. SAHARA-L. 2011;8:156–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Earnshaw VA, Chaudoir SR. From conceptualizing to measuring HIV stigma: a review of HIV stigma mechanism measures. AIDS Behav. 2009;13:60–1177.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Spira RD, Gueguen A, Lert F. Disease severity, self-reported experience of workplace discrimination and employment loss during the course of chronic HIV disease: differences according to gender and education. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65:112–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Loutfy MR, Logie CH, Zhang Y, Blitz SL, Margolese SL, Tharao WE, et al. Gender and ethnicity differences in HIV-related stigma experienced by people living with HIV in Ontario, Canada. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e48168.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Bos AER, Schaalma HP, Pryor JB. Reducing AIDS-related stigma in developing countries: the importance of theory and evidence-based interventions. Psychol Health Med. 2013;13:450–60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Sprague L, Simon S, Sprague C. Employment discrimination and HIV stigma: survey results from civil society organizations and people living with HIV in Africa. Afr J AIDS Res. 2011;10(Suppl1):311–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. WHO.2011.Regional Office for Europe: Key facts on HIV epidemic in Serbia progression. 2011. [http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/188762/Serbia-HIVAIDS-Country-Profile-2011-revision-2012-final.pdf]. Accessed 7 Sept 2013.
  25. Prevalencija populacija pod povećanim rizikom od HIV-a u Republici Srbiji. Institut za javno zdravlje Srbije “Dr Milan Jovanovic Batut”. 2011. [http://www.batut.org.rs/download/publikacije/Prevalencija%20populacija%20pod%20povecanim%20rizikom%20od%20HIV-a.pdf]. (in Serbian). Accessed 7 Sept 2013.
  26. Istorija HIV-a u nas. [http://www.jazas.rs/files/KONTAKT%2003%20preview-3.pdf]. (in Serbian). Accessed 5 Sept 2013.
  27. Asocijacije za borbu protiv side – JAZZAS. [http://www.jazas.net/]. (in Serbian). Accessed 5 Sept 2013.
  28. Centar za afirmaciju pozitivnog života – Q Club. [http://www.q-club.org.rs/] (in Serbian). Accessed 10 Sept 2013.
  29. Belgrade Centre for Human Rights. [http://www.bgcentar.org.rs/]. Accessed 10 Sept 2013.
  30. Koalicija protiv diskriminacije. [http://www.stopdiskriminaciji.org/]. (in Serbian). Accessed 15 Sept 2013.
  31. Komisija za borbu protiv HIV/AIDSA-a Vlade Republike Srbije: Strategija o HIV infekciji i AIDS-u. Ministarstvo zdravlja Republike Srbije i Tematska grupa Ujedinjenih nacija za HIV/AIDS. Srbija. Beograd; 2012. (in Serbian)Google Scholar
  32. Dobrotvorni fond Srpske pravoslavne crkve “Covekoljublje”, Beograd. [http://www.covekoljublje.org/ocove_misija.html.] (in Serbian). Accessed 15 Sept 2013.
  33. Mahmoud MM, Nasr AM, Gassmelseed DE, Abdalelhafiz MA, Elsheikh MA, Adam I. Knowledge and attitude toward HIV voluntary counseling and testing services among pregnant women attending an antenatal clinic in Sudan. J Med Virol. 2007;79:469–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lau JFT, Tsui HY. Discriminatory attitudes towards people living with HIV/AIDS and associated factors: a population based study in Chinese general population. Sex Transm Infect. 2005;81:113–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Serbia multiple indicator cluster survey cluster survey 2010. Monitoring the situation of children and women. Belgrade: UNICEF; 2012.Google Scholar
  36. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia: Multiple indicator cluster survey, Serbia 2010. Administrative documents. Memorandum of understanding. [http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/userFiles/file/Stanovnistvo/Pokazatelji2010/survey0/index.html]. Accessed 11 Sept 2013.
  37. Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia: Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey, Serbia 2010. Technical documents. Letter for the households. [http://webrzs.stat.gov.rs/WebSite/userFiles/file/Stanovnistvo/Pokazatelji2010/survey0/index.html]. Accessed 11 Sept 2013.
  38. Kemm J. Health education and the problem of knowledge. Health Promot Int. 2010;6:291–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Hurdle DE. Social support: a critical factor in women’s health and health promotion. Health Soc Work. 2001;26:72–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. McDowell TL, Serovich JM. The effect of perceived and actual social support on the mental health of HIV-positive persons. AIDS Care. 2007;19:1223–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Audet CA, McGowen CC, Kenneth A, Wallston A, Kipp AM. Relationship between HIV stigma and self-isolation among people living with HIV in Tennessee. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e69564.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention. HIV-related knowledge and stigma - United States, 2000. MMWR 2000, 49:1062–1064.Google Scholar
  43. Hutchinson PL, Mahlalela X, Yukich J. Mass media, stigma, and disclosure of HIV test results: multilevel analysis in the eastern cape, South Africa. AIDS Educ Prev. 2007;19:489–510.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Campbell C, Nair Y, Maimane S, Nicholson J. ‘Dying twice’: a multilevel model of the roots of AIDS stigma in two South African communities. J Health Psychol. 2007;12:403–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Bogart LM, Cowgill BO, Kennedy D, Ryan G, Murphy DA, Elijah J, et al. HIV-related stigma among people with HIV and their families: a qualitative analysis. AIDS Behav. 2008;12:244–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Lambda Legal: HIV stigma and discrimination in the U.S.: an evidence-based report, 2010. [http://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/publications/downloads/fs_hiv-stigma-and-discrimination-in-the-us_1.pdf]. Accessed 12 Sept 2013.
  47. Nagamatsu M, Nakagawa A, Sato T, Saito H. HIV prevention through extended education encompassing students, parents, and teachers in Japan. Environ Health Prev Med. 2011;16:350–62.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Goldman DP, Bao Y. Effective HIV treatment and the employment of HIV(+) adults. Health Serv Res. 2004;39:1691–712.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Dray Spira R, Gueguen A. Leret F the VESPA Study Group: Disease severity, self-reported experience of workplace discrimination and employment loss during the course of chronic HIV disease: differences according to gender and education. Occup Environ Med. 2008;65:112–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Rao D, Angell B, Lam C, Patrick Corrigan P. Details for manuscript number SSM-D-07-01816R2 “Stigma in the workplace: employer attitudes about people with HIV in Beijing, Hong Kong, and Chicago”. Soc Sci Med. 2008;65:1541–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. NAM, Aidsmap: HIV, stigma & discrimination. [http://www.aidsmap.com/files/file1001097.pdf]. Accessed 12 Sept 2013.
  52. Bernays S, Rhodes T, Jankovic Terzic K. “You should be grateful to have medicines”: continued dependence, altering stigma and the HIV treatment experience in Serbia. AIDS Care. 2010;22 Suppl 1:14–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Buseh AG, Kelber ST, Stevens PE, Park CG. Relationship of symptoms, perceived health, and stigma with quality of life among urban HIV-infected African American men. J Public Health Nursing. 2008;25:409–19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Galvan FH, Davis EM, Banks D, Bing EG. HIV stigma and social support among African Americans. AIDS Patient Care STDs. 2008;22:423–36.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Valente SM. Depression and HIV disease. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2003;14:41–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Sandelowski M, Lambe C, Barroso J. Stigma in HIV positive women. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2004;36:122–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Vyavaharkar M, Moneyham L, Corwin S, Saunders R, Annang L, Tavakoli A. Relationships between stigma, social support, and depression in HIV-infected African American women living in the rural Southeastern United States. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2010;21:144–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Kaye DK. Gender inequality and domestic violence: implications for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention. African Health Sciences. 2004;4:67–70.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  59. von Massow F. ‘We are forgotten on earth’: international development targets, poverty and gender in Ethiopia. Gend Dev. 2000;8:45–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. van Servellen G, Sarna L, Nyamathi A, Padilla G, Brecht ML, Jablonski KJ. Emotional distress in women with symptomatic HIV disease. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 1998;19:173–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Buseh AG, Stevens PE. Constrained but not determined by stigma: resistance by African American women living with HIV. Women Health. 2006;44:1–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. UNAIDS. Agenda for Accelerated Country Action for Women, Girls, Gender Equality and HIV: Operational Plan for the UNAIDS Action Framework: Addressing Women, Girls, Gender Equality and HIV. [http://www.unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/dataimport/pub/manual/2010/20100226_jc1794_agenda_for_accelerated_country_action_en.pdf]. Accessed 20 Sept 2013.
  63. UNAIDS. Core Indicators for National AIDS Programmes: Guidance and Specifications for Additional Recommended Indicators, Geneva. UNAIDS. 2008. [http://data.unaids.org/pub/BaseDocument/2009/20090305_additionalrecommendedindicators_finalprintversio_en.pdf]. Accessed 20 Sept 2013.
  64. UNICEF. Childinfo. Monitoring the Situation of Children and Women. [http://www.childinfo.org/mics4_surveys.html.]. Accessed 20 Sept 2013.
  65. Berger B. Measurement of perceived stigma in people with HIV infection. PhD thesis. University of Illinois; 1995.Google Scholar
  66. Berger BE, Ferrans CE, Lashley FR. Measuring stigma in people with HIV: psychometric assessment of the HIV stigma scale. Res Nurs Health. 2001;24:518–29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. UNICEF. Statistics and Monitoring Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS). [http://www.unicef.org/statistics/index_24302.html]. Accessed 18 Sept 2013.

Copyright

© Terzic-Supic et al. 2015

Advertisement