Impact of Targeted HIV/AIDS Education on Knowledge of Adolescents

Kamla-Raj 2006 J. Hum. Ecol., 20(3): 201-206 (2006) Impact Targeted Education on Knowledge Adolescents Musa O. Anavberokhai Department Physical and Health Education, Faculty Education, Ambrose Alli University, P.M.B. 14, Ekpoma, Edo State, Nigeria Telephone: 08055512281, E-mail: musaanavberokhai@yahoo.com KEYWORDS. Adolescents. Education. Sexual Issues. Social Cultural Factors ABSTRACT This study examined the impact targeted education on knowledge in-school adolescents in Ekpoma environs. Using the quasi experimental, non equivalent control group design, the and intervention data from the experimental and control group were compared using descriptive statistics and t-test. The result showed significant difference between -experimental and control groups in their knowledge with the control group showing an advantage over the experimental group. The -test analysis also showed significant difference in variable tested with the experimental group overcoming the initial disadvantaged position to perform better than the control group. This indicated that the intervention impacted on the subjects and should be sustained and improved upon. INTRODUCTION Early efforts to stem the sad were centered around medical research for a drug/vaccine. Several years after, the outcome has not matched the devastating effects the pandemic. This has necessitated a multidisciplinary approach to stem the tide devastatation. It is in this regard that education has become indispensable. It has been found to be essential in increasing knowledge HIV/ AIDS and modifying behaviour that encourage its sad (Lavar, 1992; Isiugo-Abanihe, 1994; Adegbola et al., 1995; Anarfi and Antwi, 1995). Over the years educational efforts in this direction have been massive and progressive. From education selected, diverse and mixed groups to targeted intervention. All these have proved successful to a reasonable extent though shortcomings were earlier observed. These were due to the uncoordinated, informational, fearful, sensational, confusing, anxiety provoking and misleading nature earlier messages (Gordon and Klouda, 1995; Lavar, 1992). Current data shows that infection has hit 40 million mark and the most economically active age bracket 15-39 years being mostly affected. There is therefore the need to extend special education to this segment the population. It is against this backdrop that this study extended targeted education to the adolescents. The choice the adolescents was advised by the fact that they are amenable to change, constitute the future adults and allowing them to grow with the right knowledge will hopefully influence their attitude and practices towards sex and other disposing behavours. This will save the oncoming generation from pandemic. The adolescents constitute a significant portion those affected by, their risk level is compounded by the fact that the age is characterized by intense sexual drive and experimentation with sex without protection, lack frank discussion sexual issues with them by adults because social cultural factors. The existing interventions do not seem to have sufficiently addressed the adolescents. More over reports indicate an increasing evidence cases among adolescents. Hence this study focused the intervention strategy HIV/ AIDS education on the adolescents to enable them benefit from its objective which is to increase knowledge and change behaviour that have high rate transmission infection. (Jaenson, 1991). Statement Problem: The main problem the study was to determine the impact targeted education on knowledge in - school adolescents. To solve the major problem, efforts were made to test the following hypotheses. Hypotheses the Study: (1) There is no significant difference between -test experimental group and test control group in their knowledge. (2) There is no significant difference between test experimental group and

202 MUSA O. ANAVBEROKHAI test control group in their knowledge following intervention. (3) There is no significant difference between test experimental group and test experimental group in their knowledge following intervention. (4) There is no significant difference between test control group and test control group in their knowledge. Purpose the Study: The main purpose the study was to determine the extent to which knowledge in-school adolescents will be affected as a result targeted education. The specific purposes the study were: (1) To determine the knowledge HIV/ AIDS among in-school adolescents. (2) To expose in-school adolescents to targeted education. (3) To determine the effect Targeted education on adolescent knowledge. Significant the Study: (1) The outcome the study will stimulate peer education among the adolescents. (2) Provide basis for curriculum planners to develop a policy to include education in the school curriculum for its sustainability. (3) The data from the study would serve as reference and resource materials to researchers interested in similar study. Delimitation the Study: The study was limited to coeducational institutions because the dynamics the study seem to be more valent under a coeducational environment. The various components knowledge examined are meaning, origin, causes, transmission, epidemiology, etiology, disposing factors common signs and symptoms, vention, control and effects, Limitations the Study: The study does not sent an omnipotent solution to the modification knowledge it only sought to examine the effectiveness the strategy targeted intervention on adolescents. METHODOLOGY Design the Study: The study was a quasiexperimental one that employed the nonequivalent control group design. Population the Study: This consisted duly registered fee paying students Uhiele and Illeh secondary schools in Esan West L.G.A. Edo State. Sample and Sampling Technique: The stratified random sampling technique was adopted in the selection schools while simple random sampling was adopted in placement schools into experimental/control groups. Following this, Uhiele Secondary School emerged as control group while Illeh Secondary School was placed as experimental group. The first arm SSII class was utilized for convenience being the most senior class at the time the study. The SSIII class had just finished its final WAEC exams. Instrumentation: The instrument for the study was a questionnaire titled Targeted HIV/ AIDS education questionnaire (THAEQ). It had two sections A and B. Section A solicited demographic information while section B was made up 44 questions on knowledge. They were raised on 4 points scale raging from Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree to Strongly Disagree. These choices were scored by assigning a score 4 to strongly agree, 3 to agree, 2 to disagree and 1 to strongly disagree for all positive statements. For negative statements scoring was vice versa. The maximum and minimum scores obtainable were 176 and 44 respectively. Validity Instrument: The instrument was content validated. Three jurors comprising experts in health education helped to validate the instrument by going through it critically and making necessary observations, corrections and suggestions, which were effected in the final instrument. Reliability Instrument: The test retest method was adopted in determining the reliability the instrument based on Dare and Cleland s (1994) submission that the commonest approach to measurement reliability in sex surveys is test-retest measures. SSII students in a secondary school in an entirely different local council were involved in the test retest exercise. A correlation coefficient 0.79 was obtained which proved the instrument reliable. Administration Instrument: The and test administration instrument was personally carried out by the researcher. The following fixes were written on top the

IMPACT OF TARGETED EDUCATION ON KNOWLEDGE OF ADOLESCENTS 203 questionnaires to make for identification and orderliness. ex = test experimental group con = test control group ex = test experimental group con - test control group. Data Analysis: The analysis data was by simple descriptive statistics and an inferential statistic (t-test). 0.05 level significance was adopted. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS A total 73 questionnaires were distributed for the test as follows: Experimental group (35); control group 38. All the copies the questionnaires were returned. However 2 copies from the experimental group and 5 from the control group were improperly completed and had to be discarded. For test, a total 58 copies the questionnaires were distributed thus:- experimental group 30; control group 28. In the final analysis 47 copies the questionnaires were useable. The experimental group had while the control group had. The attrition was due to the criteria used for the final selection respondents that were set from the onset. They included 100% attendance at education sessions: proper completion and text questionnaire. The test results showed that an equal number respondents 12 (50%) in the experimental group had satisfactory and unsatisfactory knowledge. In the control group 13 (56.52%) the respondents had satisfactory knowledge while 10 (43.48%) had unsatisfactory knowledge. These were based on their deviation from the ground mean as shown in table 1. In comparing the and test results, a perceived increased was observed in knowledge from 12 (50%) to 14 (58.33%) in the experimental group whereas a decrease was observed for the control group from 13 (56.52%) to 9 (39.13%). To find out where significant differen-ces existed between the and test groups as hypothesized a t-test was run and the findings are sented in table 3, 4. Hypothesis One: There is no significant difference between -test experimental and control groups in their knowledge. The table indicated a significant difference between test experimental and control groups in the following level ii (origin ); level iv (transmission ); level vi (etiology ); level viii (common signs and symptoms ); level xi (effects ); since the critical t is higher than calculated t at 0.05 level significance for the levels. The null hypothesis was thus rejected. From the table the control group seem to have higher means than the experimental group in practically all the levels where differences existed giving it potential knowledge superiority. Hypothesis Two: there is no significant difference between test experimental and control groups in knowledge following intervention (Table 4). Table 4 showed significant differences between the test experimental and control groups in level 1 (meaning ); v (epidemiology ); vi (etiology ); vii (disposing factors to HIV/ AIDS); viii (common signs and symptoms ); and ix (vention ); so the null hypothesis was rejected. Hypothesis Three: there is no significant difference between test and test experimental groups in knowledge following intervention (Table 5). As table 5 shows, significant differences Table 1: test knowledge Variable Groups N Mean Grandmean Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Knowledge Experimental 115.13 120.96 12(50.00%) 12(50.00%) 126.78 13(56.52%) 10 (43.48%) Table 2: test knowledge Variable Groups N Mean Grandmean Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Knowledge Experimental 137.42 132.43 14(58.33%) 10 (41.67%) 127.44 9(39.13%) 14 (60.87%)

204 MUSA O. ANAVBEROKHAI Table 3: t-test summary knowledge test experimental and control groups. No. ted t tial Decision I Meaning HVI/AIDS 3.25 3.40 0.75 2.021 Not significant ii Origin 9.6 2.99 2.45-3.75 2.021 Significant* 3.33 3.13 0 2.021 Not Significant 10.2 11.8 2. 2.71-3.48 2.021 Significant* 2.58 2.51 1.49 2.021 Not significant vi Etiology 12.0 2.20 1.76 3.66 2.021 Significant* vii disposing factors to 9.0 9.4 2.00 2.39 0.93 2.021 Not significant symptoms 12.3 2.44 2.12 4.09 2.021 Significant* ix vention 10.6 11.2 2.54 2.91 1.25 2.021 Not significant x 11.0 3.29 3.34 0.57 2.021 Not significant xi Effects 10.3 1.63 11.7 1.41 3.89 2.021 Significant* Table 4: t-table summary knowledge test experimental and control groups. No. ted t tial Decision i Meaning 13.9 1.62 HVI/AIDS 12.0 2.00 4.87 2.021 Significant* ii Origin 12.2 11.3 2.71 2.39 1.92 2.021 Not Significant 12.0 11.9 3.25 2.29 0.20 2.021 Not Significant 12.9 12.3 1.90 2.10 1.46 2.021 Not significant 1.74 2.71 3.72 2.021 Not significant vi Etiology 12.9 11.7 2.29 2.17 2.73 2.021 Significant vii disposing factors to 11.8 10.3 3.31 2.60 3.00 2.021 Significant* symptoms 11.6 2. 2.45 3.11 2.021 Significant* ix vention 11.7 1.86 1.76 3.33 2.021 Significant* x 11.3 2.93 2.88 0.40 2.021 Not significant xi Effects 11.8 2.04 12.4 1.66 1.50 2.021 Not significant existed in all levels except level iii (causes HIV/ AIDS) and x (control ). We thus reject the null hypothesis. Hypothesis Four: There is no significant difference between and test control groups in knowledge (Table 6). The table showed a significant difference between the groups in level vii (disposing factors to at 0.05 alpha level. Hypothesis 4 was thus rejected. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS Proportion prima-facie respondents who exhibited satisfactory knowledge were 12 (50%) for experimental group, and 13

IMPACT OF TARGETED EDUCATION ON KNOWLEDGE OF ADOLESCENTS 205 Table 5: t test summary knowledge and test experimental group. No. ted t tial t Decision i Meaning HVI/AIDS 13.9 3.19 5.35 2.069 Significant* ii Origin 9.6 12.2 4.77 3.22 2.069 Significant* 12.0 4.15 0.56 2.069 Not Significant 10.2 12.9 3.78 4.41 2.069 Significant* 2.87 6.30 2.069 Significant* vi Etiiology 12.9 3.27 5.27 2.069 Significant* vii disposing factors to 9.0 11.8 4.63 3.79 2.069 Significant* symptoms 4.34 3.62 2.069 Significant* ix vention 10.6 3.40 4.41 2.069 Significant* x 11.3 3.74 1.09 2.069 Not significant xi Effects 10.3 11.8 2.90 3.10 2.069 Not significant Table 6: t-test summary knowledge and test control group. No. ted t tial t Decision i Means 12.0 3.01-1.35 2.074 Not significant ii origin 11.3 3.33 0.18 2.074 Not significant 11.9 2.93-0.60 2.074 Not significant 11.8 12.3 3.01-0.79 2.074 Not significant 3.95 0.10 2.074 Not significant vi Etiology 12.0 11.7 2.47 0.64 2.074 Not significant vii disposition 9.4 10.3 2.20-2.16 2.074 Significant* symptoms 12.3 11.6 2.38 1.37 2.074 Not significant ix vention 11.2 11.7 3.15-0.62 2.074 Not significant x 11.0 3.71 0.42 2.074 Not significant xi Effects 11.7 12.4 2.55 1.27 2.074 Not significant (56%) for control group. This was considered poor considering the level and quantity information about around us. The result on table 1 could be attributed to the shortcomings earlier campaign which Lavar (1992), considered uncoordinated, informational, fareful, sensational, confusing, anxiety evoking and sometimes out rightly misleading. The result however justifies the need for the study. An increased knowledge was observed in test experimental group while it was vice versa for the control group based on the proportionate increase and decrease in the groups responses. (Table 2). The result from the analysis contrasted with hypothesis one (Table

206 MUSA O. ANAVBEROKHAI 3). A significant difference was observed in levels II (origin ); IV (transmission HIV/ AIDS); VI (etiology ; VIII (common signs and symptoms; and VI (effects HIV/ AIDS) between test knowledge the experimental and control groups. The control group seemed to possess higher mean values than the experimental group in all the levels compared. Hypothesis 2 was also rejected. Table 3 showed significant difference for levels I, V; VI; VII; VIII; and IX. The experimental group now seemed to have improved tremendously over the control group that tended to have an initial advantage; during the test comparison. These developments were attributed to the treatment/ intervention, which confirms with Lavar s (1992); Isuigo-Abanihe (1994). Adegbola et al. (1995); Anarfi and Antwis (1995) position that education increases people s knowledge. The results also contrasted with hypothesis 3. (Table 5). Significant differences were observed in knowledge between the and test experimental group in all levels except levels III and X. The test result showed improved knowledge over the test group. Hypothesis 4 was not upheld by the result. A significant difference was observed between and test control group in level VII. This outcome was worth noting because the group did not undergo any treatment. This implied that a change in knowledge can occur in in-school adolescents normally irrespective exposure to education. This could be due to peer interaction stimulated by test administration instrument and mass media influence. Drawing from the results the findings, the study outcome could be said to conform with the objective intervention programmers which is to increase knowledge and change behaviour that have high rate transmiting infection (Jaenson, 1991). CONCLUSION Based on the findings the following conclusions were drawn. (1) The respondents knowledge was unsatisfactory considering the level HIV/ AIDS information in the environment vis a vis their level education. (2) The test experimental and control groups were statistically different in knowledge in some levels. The control group seemed better knowledgeable than the experimental group. (3) The targeted education significantly impacted on knowledge respondents particularly in the experimental group, which overcame the initial disadvantaged position to perform better after treatment in all level comparisons. RECOMMENDATIONS (1) Targeted education be encouraged and sustained to fully harness its potential to improve knowledge. (2) education be integrated into primary school curriculum by curriculum planners to fully exploit the opportunities inherent in the school environment. (3) The education programmers be meaningfully supported for all groups by Governmental and non governmental organization. REFERENCES Adegbola, O., Babatola, O. and Oni, J.: Sexual networking in Freetown against the background AIDS epidemic. Health Transition Review, 5(Supplement): 81-110 (1995). Anarfi, J. K. and Antwi, P.: Street Youth In Accra City: Sexual networking in a high risk environment and its implication for the sad AIDS. Health Transition Review, 5(Supplement): 131-142 (1995). Dare, O. O. and Cleland, J. G.: Reliability and validity survey data on sexual behaviour. Health Transition Review, 4(Supplement): 93-110 (1994). Gordon, G. and Klouda, T.: Talking Aids, a Guide to Community Work. London: Macmillian, London (1995). Isuigo-Abanihe, U. C.: Extramarital relations and perception HIV in Nigeria. Health Transition Review, 4(2): 111-126 (1994). Jaenson, C.: Community structure affects behaviour. FHI Network, 12(1): -25 (1991). Lavar, S.: Steps to success in teaching and training. AIDS Action, 19: 5-8 (1992).