Differences in HIV knowledge and sexual practices of learners with intellectual disabilities and non-disabled learners in Nigeria.

Toyin J Aderemi,Basil J Pillay,Tonya M Esterhuizen

doi:10.7448/ias.16.1.17331

Toyin J Aderemi, Basil J Pillay + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.7448/ias.16.1.17331

Copy DOI

Abstract

IntroductionIndividuals with intellectual disabilities are rarely targeted by the current human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) response, thereby reducing their access to HIV information and services. Currently, little is known about the HIV knowledge and sexual practices of young Nigerians with intellectual disabilities. Thus, this study sought to compare the HIV knowledge and sexual practices of learners with mild/moderate intellectual disabilities and non-disabled learners (NDL) in Nigeria. Findings could help in the development of HIV interventions that are accessible to Nigerian learners with intellectual impairments.MethodsThis cross-sectional, comparative study utilized a survey to investigate HIV knowledge and sexual practices among learners with mild/moderate intellectual disabilities and NDL in Nigeria. Learners with mild/moderate intellectual disabilities (n=300) and NDL (n=300) within the age range of 12 to 19 years drawn from schools across Oyo State, Nigeria, completed a structured questionnaire to assess their knowledge of HIV transmission and sexual practices.ResultsSignificantly more learners with mild/moderate intellectual disabilities (62.2%) than NDL 48 (37.8%) reported having sexual experience (p=0.002). Of the sexually experienced female learners with mild/moderate intellectual disabilities, 28 (68.3%) reported history of rape compared with 9 (2.9%) of female NDL (p=0.053). Intellectual impairment was significantly associated with lower HIV transmission knowledge scores (p<0.001). Learners with mild/moderate intellectual disabilities were less likely than NDL (p<0.001) to have heard about HIV from most of the common sources of HIV information. In addition, when compared with non-disabled learners, learners with mild/moderate intellectual disabilities were significantly more likely to have reported inconsistent condom use with boyfriends/girlfriends (p<0.001), with casual sexual partners (p<0.001) and non-use of condom during last sexual activity (p<0.001).ConclusionsFindings suggest that adolescents with intellectual impairments are at higher risk of HIV infection than their non-disabled peers. This gap could be addressed through interventions that target Nigerians with intellectual impairments with accessible HIV information and services.

Highlights

Individuals with intellectual disabilities are rarely targeted by the current human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) response, thereby reducing their access to HIV information and services
Little is known about the risk factors for HIV infection among adolescents with intellectual disabilities in Nigeria, and whether or not they face higher risk of HIV infection than their non-disabled peers
Characteristics of the overall data The final analysis was based on completed questionnaires from 300 learners with mild/moderate intellectual disabilities (LMID) (50%) and 300 non-disabled learners (NDL) (50%)

Summary

Introduction

Individuals with intellectual disabilities are rarely targeted by the current human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) response, thereby reducing their access to HIV information and services. This study sought to compare the HIV knowledge and sexual practices of learners with mild/moderate intellectual disabilities and non-disabled learners (NDL) in Nigeria. This study sought to investigate and compare HIV knowledge and sexual practices of learners with mild/moderate intellectual disabilities and non-disabled learners (NDL) in Nigeria. Persons with disabilities Á physical, sensory (blindness and deafness), intellectual and mental Á had been overlooked in HIV response despite their equal or higher exposure to HIV [3] They were often assumed not to be at risk of HIV infection due to erroneous beliefs that they were sexually inactive, unlikely to use drugs/alcohol and less likely to be raped than non-disabled people [4]. They face lack of access to healthcare, poverty, social inequality and lack of human rights protection [6,7]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion