Understanding the Impact of HIV-AIDS Awareness Classes on Secondary School Students’ Knowledge and Perceptions

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) pose major Public Health Challenges Worldwide, having affected an estimated 44.1 million lives to date ^[1,2]. It is important that proper awareness should be given especially among children and advocate for effective HIV and AIDS education, counselling and ensuring non-discriminatory access to voluntary and confidential counselling and HIV testing ^[3]. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an awareness class on HIV-AIDS among higher secondary school students. The study assesses the knowledge level of students before and after the awareness class and measures the impact of the class on their understanding of the topic ^[4,5].

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

1. Pre-Questionnaire: A pre-designed questionnaire was administered to 95 higher secondary school students to assess their knowledge level regarding HIV-AIDS before the awareness class.
2. Awareness Class: An awareness class was conducted on HIV-AIDS for the students, covering key aspects and concepts related to the topic.
3. Post-Questionnaire: The same questionnaire was administered to the students after the awareness class to assess the change in their knowledge level.
4. Data Analysis:

• Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores: The pre-test and post-test scores of the students were compared to evaluate the effectiveness of the awareness class.
• Mean and Standard Deviation: The mean and standard deviation of the pre-test and post-test scores were calculated to determine the significance of the change in knowledge level.
• Statistical Analysis: A paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the pre-test and post-test scores and determine the statistical significance of the results.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:

1. General Knowledge:

Table 1 presents a summary of the overall level of students' AIDS knowledge prior to the implementation of this intervention and after the intervention was completed. The total sample size for both the Pre and Post Intervention phases was N=95 participants. The Pre Interventional results indicated less than half of the total sample correctly identified the complete name for AIDS (43.2%). Many participants of the Pre Interventional results incorrectly expanded the acronym for AIDS, with a large percentage selecting either of the following: Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome (37.9%), or Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome (7.4%), with an additional 11.6% indicating they did not know what the acronym stood for. The Post Interventional results show that the percentage of participants that could correctly expand the acronym to the complete title for AIDS increased substantially, 93.7%, with participants reporting no incorrect responses and eliminated the "do not know" category (0.0%). With respect to the causative agent(s) for AIDS, the Pre Interventional results showed 72.6% of respondents indicated that the causative agent(s) for AIDS was a virus; 9.5% selected bacteria as the causative agent(s); 15.8% selected fungus as the causative agent(s); and 2.1% did not know what the causative agent(s) for AIDS were. The Post Interventional results demonstrated 100% of participants correctly stating that the causative agent(s) for AIDS is a virus; this means that the percentage of the total sample providing an incorrect response or indicating they did not know the causative agent(s) were eliminated. An area in which respondents indicated a better understanding of HIV/AIDS prior to the intervention was with regard to the routes of transmission; at baseline 74.7% of the respondents selected "all of the above" (blood transfusion, sexual contact, and sharing needles); this increased to 83.2% in the Post Interventional results, indicating an improvement in awareness of multiple modes of transmission. The results of the table indicate that the overall results of the intervention showed a marked increase in all aspects of students' knowledge of the definitions and causative agents of HIV/AIDS. The results also demonstrate that the intervention increased students' awareness of the routes of transmission and therefore, the students' comprehension of HIV/AIDS.

Table.1 General Knowledge

2. Transmission and Prevention:

In the initial assessment we assessed how much knowledge students had of myths about how you get AIDS or how you might prevent getting AIDS before and after they went through our education intervention (n = 95). Prior to the educational intervention, a significant majority of the students (63.2%) selected the statement "none of the above" on the survey. However, many students had misconceptions regarding methods in which AIDS could be transmitted (21.1% thought food or drink shared would transmit AIDS; 9.5% thought public toilets would allow transmission; and 6.3% thought that a hug or handshake would cause transmission). Post educational intervention all of these students changed their response to "none of the above" (87.4% on follow-up). Additionally, proportionally fewer students thought these methods would transmit AIDS (i.e. food or drink shared = 21.1% to 4.2%; public toilets = 9.5% to 3.2%). Thus, the education intervention greatly improved the students' understanding of methods of non-transmission of HIV/AIDS and how to prevent HIV/AIDS through education. Almost all students (69.5%) selected "all of the above" as comprehensive prevention at baseline. This percentage increased to 77.9% following the educational intervention. Simultaneously the number of students selecting condom use alone (13.7% to 8.4%) and avoiding needle sharing alone (15.8% to 10.5%) decreased dramatically indicating that students had developed more integrated knowledge regarding the prevention of HIV/AIDS. Only a slight increase in awareness regarding regularly testing is noted (1.1% to 3.2%), signifying that this must be a focus in future education sessions. Therefore, this table demonstrates that the educational intervention has significantly improved the students' understanding of how AIDS is transmitted and how to prevent it.

Table.2 Knowledge on Transmission and Prevention

3. Symptoms and Treatment:

Students' understanding of the signs of AIDS and their treatment was assessed before and after an educational program (n=95). When the study began, slightly more than half of the students (53.7%) believed that AIDS displays symptoms. The remaining respondents selected a number of individual symptoms—Weight loss/diarrhoea (20.0%), Fever/Cough (14.7%), and Skin Rash/Fatigue (11.6%)as individual options, which means that there are many more symptoms associated with AIDS. In response to the educational program, students increased their ability to identify all three categories of symptoms under the “All of the above” heading to 77.9% and decreased their selection of individual symptom options by a combination of all three categories. This indicates that there is an improved ability to identify the clinical signs that accompany AIDS than in the past.

With regard to knowledge about a cure, at baseline, 73.7% of students correctly stated that AIDS cannot be cured, while 26.3% incorrectly thought it could be cured. After the program, there was a slight decrease in the percentage of students stating “no,” 69.5%, and an increase in the percentage of students stating “yes,” 30.5%. The remaining proportion likely represents continued misconceptions, which may even be compounded by confusion between “treatment” and “cure.” This reinforces the need for educational programs to be increasingly specific and succinct to establish and reinforce the concept of lifelong treatment for AIDS.

Table.3 Knowledge on Symptoms and Treatment

4. Awareness and Attitude:

Table 4 is a comparison of the changes in communication patterns and attitudes to HIV/AIDS within pupils at school (N = 95) as measured before and after the intervention. Prior to the educational programme, approximately one-third of students had spoken about their experience(s) with HIV/AIDS with friends or family (28.4%), with over two-thirds not speaking about HIV/AIDS to these individuals (71.6%), indicating a lack of communication regarding the disease. Following the education programme, this percentage of students increased to 36.8%, while 63.2% of students reported no conversations related to HIV/AIDS, indicating that the programme resulted in more open discussions and greater willingness to discuss HIV/AIDS with family and friends (within both peer and family contexts).

Students' ability to perceive HIV/AIDS as an important disease had somewhat increased from 61.1% to 65.3%, while the percentage of students who did not perceive HIV/AIDS as a serious disease decreased from 38.9% to 34.7%. The willingness to participate in HIV/AIDS awareness programmes was also high before the implementation of the programme (84.2%) and remained at a similarly high rate (82.1%) following the implementation. Thus, the table indicates that the education programme created a positive effect on both changing students' communication practices and changing their perception of HIV/AIDS risk. Students also exhibited a consistent strong willingness to participate in HIV/AIDS awareness programmes throughout the study period after the programme.

Table.4 Awareness and Attitude

5. Effect of Intervention:

The analysis of paired samples shows that the mean pretest score of 22.78 (SD = 3.275) increased to a post-test mean of 24.05 (SD = 3.502) with an average improvement of 1.27 points. This is a statistically significant change (t(94) = 3.497, p = 0.001) and serves as evidence that this education program improves student score growth. The effect size (Cohen's d = 0.36) for paired comparison is indicative of a small to moderate practical benefit; however, it still suggests that the educational intervention had a significant, although not large, impact on overall AIDS awareness scores in this population.

Table.5 Effect of Intervention