Meeting the Behavioural Data Collection Needs of National HIV/AIDS and STD Programmes (Implementing AIDS Prevention and Care Project - Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS - United States Agency for International Development, 1998, 41 p.): 2. Why track behaviour?: 2.5 Behavioural data can help explain variations in prevalence

Meeting the Behavioural Data Collection Needs of National HIV/AIDS and STD Programmes (Implementing AIDS Prevention and Care Project - Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS - United States Agency for International Development, 1998, 41 p.)

(introduction...)

1. Introduction

2. Why track behaviour?

(introduction...)

2.1 Behavioural data serves as an early warning system for HIV and STDs

2.2 Behavioural data informs effective programme design and direction

2.3 Tracking behaviour improves programme evaluation

2.4 Changes in behaviour help explain changes in HIV prevalence

2.5 Behavioural data can help explain variations in prevalence

3. Linking behavioural data with HIV serosurveillance

4. What is needed to understand and track behaviour?

(introduction...)

4.1 The role of national programmes in behavioural data collection

4.2 Key components of behavioural data collection systems

4.3 Rapid assessments, mapping and qualitative studies

4.4 Behavioural surveys in the general population

4.5 Repeated behavioural surveys in selected population groups

5. Do people tell the truth about their sexual and drug-taking behaviour?

6. Recommended mix of data collection methods

(introduction...)

6.1 Stages of the HIV epidemic

6.2 Behavioural data collection in a low-level epidemic

6.3 Behavioural data collection in a concentrated epidemic

6.4 Behavioural data collection in a generalised epidemic

7. What next?

8. Sustaining behavioural data collection over time

Bibliography

Annex

2.5 Behavioural data can help explain variations in prevalence

Although comparisons across regions, cultures, and countries must be made with extreme caution, behavioural data can also help explain differences in levels of infection between one region and another. This is particularly true when indicators of risk behaviour are standardised across all studies and surveys, with the same wording and reference periods.