2011). The inability to negotiate for condom use within relationships, especially within established relationships, has also been noted elsewhere (Allen et al. 2011; Pettifor, MacPhail, Corneli, Sibeko, Kamanga, Rosenberg, et al. 2011). RP5264MedChemExpress TGR-1202 Providers felt that instructing patients to rely on condoms might not be a viable option within the context of their patients’ lives and the risk that is occurring. Allen and colleagues in Uganda came to a similar conclusion and felt that PP interventions should broaden their focus from narrow behavioral measures such as condom use and incorporate contextual and social environment factors such as economic insecurity of the family and marital status (Allen et al. 2011). Issues around disclosure and condom use often involve another problem that came out in our work; difficulty engaging men in HIV prevention, care, and treatment services. In a study in Kenya, disclosure of HIV status to one’s partner was identified as an important factor in determining the use of condoms and enhancing male partner involvement in making crucial decisionsregarding family planning use and safe sex practices (Bii, OtienoNyunya, Siika Rotich 2008). A study in Uganda among PLHIV further found that both male and female participants reported that men were the decision-makers regarding the frequency of sex and condom use and changing sexual behavior was most difficult among those who had not disclosed (LOXO-101 site Lifshay, Nakayiwa, King, Reznick, Katuntu, Batamwita, et al. 2009). Again, providers seem unprepared to address these complex social dynamics. This study had limitations. The high turnover rate for healthcare providers in clinics in Mozambique, coupled with the delay between the PP training and the follow-up surveys meant that many healthcare providers who were trained were not available for follow-up interviews in order to assess their ability to implement the PP measures learned during the training. Some providers were reassigned to health centers in other provinces, others were no longer working at the clinics where they had been trained, and others were sick or on vacation. Also, the trained providers were comprised of different cadres and the sample reported on here were mostly counselors. It is possible that the results presented are not generalizable to providers who have other clinical functions in these settings. Providers were also not all interviewed within the same timeframe after receiving training. This was due to the programmatic nature of the activities and the roll-out of training over time to various provinces. Although the providers were interviewed at different time points post-training, we did not observe any noticeable variation in the data based on time from training to evaluation followup; it is possible that the varying lengths of time from training to interview may have affected recall and the degree to which providers were using the PP intervention in their work. In addition, social desirability bias could have impacted the findings, causing providers to describe PP as more acceptable and feasible than it is in reality. However, to reduce this possibility, interviewers were trained study staff who were not affiliated with the PP training program or the MOH. Another challenge is that reported patient barriers, as described by providers, may be inaccurate and may not actually represent the barriers that patients face. The reported barriers listed by providers may reflect their own biases or personal challen.2011). The inability to negotiate for condom use within relationships, especially within established relationships, has also been noted elsewhere (Allen et al. 2011; Pettifor, MacPhail, Corneli, Sibeko, Kamanga, Rosenberg, et al. 2011). Providers felt that instructing patients to rely on condoms might not be a viable option within the context of their patients’ lives and the risk that is occurring. Allen and colleagues in Uganda came to a similar conclusion and felt that PP interventions should broaden their focus from narrow behavioral measures such as condom use and incorporate contextual and social environment factors such as economic insecurity of the family and marital status (Allen et al. 2011). Issues around disclosure and condom use often involve another problem that came out in our work; difficulty engaging men in HIV prevention, care, and treatment services. In a study in Kenya, disclosure of HIV status to one’s partner was identified as an important factor in determining the use of condoms and enhancing male partner involvement in making crucial decisionsregarding family planning use and safe sex practices (Bii, OtienoNyunya, Siika Rotich 2008). A study in Uganda among PLHIV further found that both male and female participants reported that men were the decision-makers regarding the frequency of sex and condom use and changing sexual behavior was most difficult among those who had not disclosed (Lifshay, Nakayiwa, King, Reznick, Katuntu, Batamwita, et al. 2009). Again, providers seem unprepared to address these complex social dynamics. This study had limitations. The high turnover rate for healthcare providers in clinics in Mozambique, coupled with the delay between the PP training and the follow-up surveys meant that many healthcare providers who were trained were not available for follow-up interviews in order to assess their ability to implement the PP measures learned during the training. Some providers were reassigned to health centers in other provinces, others were no longer working at the clinics where they had been trained, and others were sick or on vacation. Also, the trained providers were comprised of different cadres and the sample reported on here were mostly counselors. It is possible that the results presented are not generalizable to providers who have other clinical functions in these settings. Providers were also not all interviewed within the same timeframe after receiving training. This was due to the programmatic nature of the activities and the roll-out of training over time to various provinces. Although the providers were interviewed at different time points post-training, we did not observe any noticeable variation in the data based on time from training to evaluation followup; it is possible that the varying lengths of time from training to interview may have affected recall and the degree to which providers were using the PP intervention in their work. In addition, social desirability bias could have impacted the findings, causing providers to describe PP as more acceptable and feasible than it is in reality. However, to reduce this possibility, interviewers were trained study staff who were not affiliated with the PP training program or the MOH. Another challenge is that reported patient barriers, as described by providers, may be inaccurate and may not actually represent the barriers that patients face. The reported barriers listed by providers may reflect their own biases or personal challen.
