PERSPECTIVES

THE HIV prevalence rate of adults aged 15-49 in Guyana today is 2.4%. However, the first ten (10) cases of AIDS were reported in 1987, and in each year thereafter, there has been a constant increase in the incidence of the disease. Initial response to an evolving epidemic in the late 1980s was limited; at that time, samples of suspected cases were dispatched to the Caribbean Epidemiology Center (CAREC) for testing.

Increasing incidence of AIDS cases in those early years began to shape the development of a national program and a national response. A National AIDS Committee was born in 1989 to advise the Ministry of Health on a national HIV/AIDS program. Responding to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in 1992, the Government under the guidance of WHO’s Global Program on AIDS, established the National AIDS Program Secretariat (NAPS) to manage the pandemic, specifically addressing risk factors for contracting the HIV infection. Subsequently, CAREC, the European Commission (EU), and PAHO/WHO funded the establishment of the Genito-Urinary Medicine (GUM) Clinic, the National Laboratory for Infectious Disease (NLID), and the National Blood Transfusion Service (NBTS); instituting measures to reduce and control the transmission of HIV.

And more recently, the Office of the Pro-Chancellor of the University of Guyana conducted research on knowledge of HIV/AIDS and attitudes related to stigma and discrimination. This preliminary and continuing study, at this time, comprises 116 secondary school students from Queen’s College, President’s College, School of the Nations, Bishops’ High School, St. Rose’s High School, Mackenzie High School, Linden Foundation, and St. Joseph’s High School.

Students responded to the Knowledge Instrument to provide some sense of their knowledge of HIV/AIDS. Some preliminary results show that 84 percent of the students on average demonstrated knowledge of HIV/AIDS. But there were two areas that imply some knowledge fragmentation: a third of the students believed there is great danger in donating blood; and a little over three quarters of the students felt that special preventive measures must be put in place at the workplace to stop HIV transmission.

Compare these results with the 2005 study on adults I conducted on the National Tripartite Policy on HIV/AIDS at the Workplace. There were three areas of knowledge fragmentation among adults: about a third of the adults released doubts about the fact that HIV is not transmitted through sneezing, coughing, using sinks, bathrooms, toilets, and the same eating or drinking utensils, or eating food prepared by an infected person; students unlike adults had no problem with this dimension; nearly 60% of adults believed there is great danger in donating blood; students and adults are at one here; and some two-thirds of adults believed that special preventive measures must be put in place to stop HIV transmission at the workplace; students and adults again are at one on this dimension.

Clearly, limited understanding of HIV/AIDS in these areas for both students and adults indicates that prevention education and awareness policy must focus more than previously on how HIV is not transmitted.

On another dimension of the study, students also responded to the HIV/AIDS-related Stigma and Discrimination Instrument. About 79 percent of students on average expressed positive attitudes toward HIV/AIDS. However, critically-held student beliefs that could contribute to stigmatized attitudes include: HIV/AIDS is death; HIV/AIDS is punishment; HIV/AIDS is horror; “People make jokes about HIV positive people”; “If I had AIDS, people would call me names and gossip about me”; and if a person is seen as sitting next to an HIV/AIDS person, then the other people might think that person also has HIV/AIDS.”

Comparing the students and adults on the HIV/AIDS-related Stigma and Discrimination Instrument shows remarkable similarities; but students unlike adults have little problem with HIV/AIDS people selling food; and students again unlike adults are not uncomfortable sharing a toilet with persons living with HIV (PLHIV).

Those who stigmatise PLHIV see them as shamefully different; and generally assign a label not only to the behavior, but also to the person. The label becomes a stigma, a mark of social disgrace that separates the PLHIV from those who see themselves as ‘normal’.

These are a mere sample of preliminary findings; I will present all the findings later. This research, however, is continuing apace, and is part of a larger study to be published as a book.
* Previously published in Guyana Chronicle