Gender and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.
Centre for Rural Health, School of Nursing and Public Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
PLoS One. 2020 Mar 17;15(3):e0230105. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230105. eCollection 2020.
To assess i) whether there is an independent association between HIV-prevalence and settlement types (urban formal, urban informal, rural formal, rural informal), and, ii) whether this changes over time, in South Africa. We draw on four (2002; 2005; 2008; 2012) cross-sectional South African household surveys. Data is analysed by sex (male/female), and for women by age categories (15-49; and 15-24; 25-49) at all-time points, for men in 2012 data is analysed by age categories (15-24; 25-49). By settlement type and sex/age combinations, we descriptively assess the association between socio-demographic and HIV-risk factors; HIV-prevalence; and trends in HIV-prevalence by time. Relative risk ratios assess unadjusted and adjusted risk for HIV-prevalence by settlement type. All estimates are weighted, and account for survey design. In all survey years, and combinations of sex/age categorisations, HIV-prevalence is highest in urban informal settlements. For men (15-49) an increasing HIV-prevalence over time in rural informal settlements was seen (p = 0.001). For women (15-49) HIV-prevalence increases over time for urban informal, rural informal, rural formal, and women (15-24) decreases in urban formal and urban informal, and women (25-49) increases urban informal and rural informal settlements. In analyses adjusting for potential socio-demographic and risk factors, compared to urban formal settlements, urban informal settlements had consistently higher relative risk of HIV for women, in all age categorisations, for instance in 2012 this was RR1.89 (1.50, 2.40) for all women (15-49), for 15-24 (RR1.79, 1.17-2.73), and women 25-49 (RR1.91, 1.47-2.48). For men, in the overall age categorization, urban informal settlements had a higher relative risk for HIV in all years. In 2012, when this was disaggregated by age, for men 15-24 rural informal (IRR2.69, 1.28-5.67), and rural formal (RR3.59, 1.49-8.64), and for men 25-49 it was urban informal settlements with the highest (RR1.68, 1.11-2.54). In 2012, rural informal settlements also had higher adjusted relative risk for HIV-prevalence for men (15-49) and women (15-49; 15-24; 25-49). In South Africa, HIV-prevalence is patterned geographically, with urban informal settlements having a particularly high burden. Geographical targeting of responses is critical for the HIV-response.
i)艾滋病毒流行率与定居类型(城市正规、城市非正规、农村正规、农村非正规)之间是否存在独立关联,以及,ii)这种关联是否随时间而变化,我们对南非的四个(2002 年;2005 年;2008 年;2012 年)横断面南非家庭调查进行了研究。数据分析基于性别(男性/女性),并针对女性,在所有时间点按年龄类别(15-49 岁;和 15-24 岁;25-49 岁)进行分析,而 2012 年的数据则针对男性,按年龄类别(15-24 岁;25-49 岁)进行分析。根据定居类型和性别/年龄组合,我们描述性地评估了社会人口统计学和艾滋病毒风险因素与艾滋病毒流行率之间的关联;艾滋病毒流行率;以及随时间推移的艾滋病毒流行率趋势。相对风险比评估了按定居类型调整后的艾滋病毒流行率的未调整和调整风险。所有估计值均经过加权处理,并考虑了调查设计。在所有调查年份以及性别/年龄分类组合中,城市非正规住区的艾滋病毒流行率最高。对于男性(15-49 岁),农村非正规住区的艾滋病毒流行率随时间呈上升趋势(p=0.001)。对于女性(15-49 岁),艾滋病毒流行率随时间呈上升趋势,而城市正规住区和城市非正规住区的女性(15-24 岁)以及农村正规住区和城市非正规住区的女性(25-49 岁)的艾滋病毒流行率则呈下降趋势,农村非正规住区和城市非正规住区的女性(25-49 岁)的艾滋病毒流行率则呈上升趋势。在调整了潜在的社会人口统计学和风险因素后,与城市正规住区相比,城市非正规住区的女性在所有年龄分类中感染艾滋病毒的相对风险均较高,例如,在 2012 年,所有 15-49 岁的女性的相对风险为 1.89(1.50,2.40),15-24 岁的女性为 1.79(1.17,2.73),而 25-49 岁的女性为 1.91(1.47,2.48)。对于男性,在所有年龄分类中,城市非正规住区的艾滋病毒感染风险均较高。在 2012 年,当按年龄细分时,15-24 岁的农村非正规住区男性(IRR2.69,1.28-5.67)和农村正规住区男性(RR3.59,1.49-8.64),而 25-49 岁的男性则是城市非正规住区的风险最高(RR1.68,1.11-2.54)。2012 年,农村非正规住区的男性(15-49 岁)和女性(15-49 岁;15-24 岁;25-49 岁)的艾滋病毒流行率调整后也具有较高的相对风险。在南非,艾滋病毒流行率具有地域分布模式,城市非正规住区的负担尤其沉重。针对地理区域采取应对措施对艾滋病毒应对至关重要。