A section on VCT acceptability (first data collection) or consequences (second data collection) was developed based on the Health Belief Model (HBM), which postulates that an analysis of the costs and benefits related to the adoption of a health behaviour, and the perception of the threat posed by the disease, are critical for an individual to engage in this

health behaviour [33]. HBM has been used previously to study VCT acceptability [19]. The first questionnaire included information CHIR-99021 molecular weight on prior HIV screenings, reasons for acceptance or refusal of the VCT, intention to disclose serostatus to someone and perceived advantages or disadvantages of VCT. The questionnaire for the second data collection included information on actual disclosure of the serostatus, positive and negative consequences experienced, regular partner’s

testing following the FSW’s test, and search for medical care or psychosocial support. Qualitative data collection focused on VCT acceptability and consequences and investigated these themes in more detail. The first version of the qualitative and quantitative instruments of data collection on VCT acceptability and consequences was reviewed, commented on and modified by a panel of Guinean and Canadian experts. The questionnaires were pre-tested by trained interviewers on a small sample of 10 FSWs before the study. Data were analysed using the spss 14 software (SPSS, Chicago, IL). Univariate analyses were Selleckchem BMN 673 used to describe main outcomes, i.e. test acceptance, prior testing, return for test results and intention of serostatus disclosure using means, standard deviations and

proportions. The main independent variables Urease included (1) HIV risk perception (measured by belief in HIV existence, number of STIs in the last 3 months and perceived risk of HIV infection); (2) predisposing factors (sociodemographic factors, attitudes towards people living with HIV, knowledge of the infection and knowing someone infected by HIV); and (3) perceived barriers to and benefits of undertaking the health behaviour (reasons for prior testing, actual testing and disclosure). In addition, the consequences of VCT 1 year later were described in terms of actual disclosure of serostatus, positive and negative events, and search for medical and psychosocial care. Data for each time-point were treated cross-sectionally. We used bivariate analyses (χ2-test and Student’s t-test) to examine associations between independent variables and main outcomes. We also estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the strength of the statistical associations of interest. However, because of lack of variability in the main outcomes, only a few associations were assessed statistically.