Featured news from NHIVNA
HIV-related news from NAM
Disappointing results from two peer education projects in southern Africa
Roger Pebody, 2011-09-20 10:20:00
Two large HIV prevention programmes that recruited people to educate their friends and classmates have both failed to make an impact on sexual behaviour, researchers report in two separate articles published online ahead of print in AIDS and Behavior.
A peer education programme for 15 and 16 year old school students in South Africa did not have any effect on students’ age of sexual debut or their use of condoms. In Zimbabwe, a programme which trained male customers of beer halls to act as peer educators with their friends did not have an effect on how often men used condoms or how many sexual partners they had.
Whereas there are signs that there were problems with the implementation of the schools programme, the beer hall intervention appears to have been well-delivered. Nonetheless the programme seems to have been unable to make an impact in a context of deep-rooted social problems and tensions.
Peer education programmes recruit and train individuals who are asked to share information about HIV with people of a similar age, status or social group. Rather than relying on professionals who may have a different social background, peer education is based on the assumption that peers trust each other, learn from each other and influence each other (particularly in relation to the sensitive issue of sexual behaviour).
Peer education activities can be delivered through structured activities (for example, in the Zimbabwean beer halls, presentations to groups of customers) or informally during the course of everyday activities (the beer hall educators were also encouraged to watch out for their friends).
Some governments and donors may value peer education partly because it is perceived to be a relatively cheap way of delivering HIV prevention to large numbers of people.
Indeed, peer education is a widely used approach in HIV prevention initiatives, especially with young people in resource-limited settings. However very few programmes have been rigorously evaluated and when evaluation has been carried out, the results have been mixed. Some programmes have had a beneficial impact on knowledge and attitudes, but less often on sexual behaviour and rates of infection.
Source:1
