Examining the details of the project and results of two surveys, especially the baseline, brought out several interesting facts:

Many people had heard of HIV/AIDS (almost 60% of the population surveyed) but the knowledge was superficial. They had heard of the term but had no understanding of what it was about. They knew very little about how it was spread but not much about how they could protect themselves and their loved ones. Only just over a quarter of those surveyed knew that HIV could be passed from a pregnant infected mother to her new child. Similarly the relationship between STI’s and HIV were a closed book to the population.

More than half the population believed that mosquitoes spread HIV and naturally thought that preventing being bitten was an effective way of protecting themselves. Because casual contact was considered a source of danger by close to half the population, they were very un-accepting of persons living with the virus.

Other similar fallacies were common. This did not imply that the population was foolish but merely that the messages they had been exposed to were singularly inadequate. The correct message, therefore, is not reaching the periphery, they have heard of HIV/AIDS but only the name !

The age distribution of the information with the community was also noteworthy. The youth knew more than the older persons. This is important because it is still the elders in the villages who are the decision makers and village leaders. This group knows very little about the disease and no messages seem to have reached them. It is no wonder that the village community does not initiate action to prevent HIV infection nor give its approval to efforts to spread the message. It is therefore important that the older persons in the village, especially the decision makers and the leaders be adequately informed. PRI involvement must be taken as a priority focus as they can initiate action.

The difference between the knowledge levels in men and women were not very significant. Women were interested and could attain similar levels of knowledge if care was taken to ensure that they formed a part of the community level interaction. Their literacy levels were lower, but their understanding was as good as their menfolk. If treated with respect, they would not lag behind.

Also, It was not the level of understanding or “intelligence” that limited effective communication, it was the inability of the so-called communicators to explain in terms understandable to the village community, that made the efforts ineffective.

The VHAI effort has, therefore, demonstrated that not only is it important to carry the message to the most distant community, but that it can be done. It has also been proven in countless studies that education to bring about a sustained change needs to be reinforced by repeated doses of inputs.

Learnings:

• Awareness messages must go beyond naming the disease, and the evaluation of an awareness programme must similarly assess attitude and not merely parroted knowledge.
• Attitude change and the dispelling of myths regarding the modes of spread of HIV will contribute greatly to minimising stigma and discrimination.
• The older generation must be informed about the disease so that they can initiate and encourage community action to prevent the spread of disease
• It is possible to bring about a very significant change in levels of awareness, real knowledge, and positive attitudes with a focused programme initiated with community participation.