20.10.2014 Views

Socio-Economic Impact of HIV and AIDS in Tamil nadu

Socio-Economic Impact of HIV and AIDS in Tamil nadu

Socio-Economic Impact of HIV and AIDS in Tamil nadu

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

In o rd e r t o s e l e c t t h e n o n - H I V<br />

households (control group), a list<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong><br />

the households <strong>in</strong> the locality/village<br />

was undertaken. In the case <strong>of</strong> rural<br />

areas, if it was a relatively small village,<br />

all the households <strong>in</strong> the village were<br />

listed. In the case <strong>of</strong> a large village, a<br />

sampl<strong>in</strong>g fraction was used <strong>and</strong> every<br />

second or third or fourth household was<br />

listed depend<strong>in</strong>g upon the size <strong>of</strong> the<br />

village. A maximum <strong>of</strong> 150 households<br />

were listed <strong>in</strong> each selected village.<br />

Similarly, <strong>in</strong> urban areas, around 100<br />

households were listed <strong>in</strong> each block.<br />

While select<strong>in</strong>g the sample non-<strong>HIV</strong><br />

households from the list<strong>in</strong>g sheets,<br />

over-sampl<strong>in</strong>g was done to compensate<br />

for non-responses. However, <strong>in</strong> the end<br />

the survey l<strong>and</strong>ed up <strong>in</strong>terview<strong>in</strong>g 1,203<br />

non-<strong>HIV</strong> households i.e. marg<strong>in</strong>ally less<br />

than three times the number <strong>of</strong> <strong>HIV</strong><br />

households <strong>in</strong>terviewed.<br />

In the list<strong>in</strong>g sheets, <strong>in</strong>formation about<br />

the socio-economic characteristics<br />

<strong>of</strong> the households, ma<strong>in</strong>ly <strong>in</strong>come <strong>of</strong><br />

the household <strong>and</strong> occupational <strong>and</strong><br />

educational status <strong>of</strong> the head <strong>of</strong> the<br />

household, was gathered. At the first<br />

step the match<strong>in</strong>g was done on the<br />

basis <strong>of</strong> the broad <strong>in</strong>come category<br />

<strong>of</strong> the household, i.e. the frequency<br />

distribution was <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>come<br />

groups <strong>of</strong> the <strong>HIV</strong> households. At the<br />

second stage, the occupational group <strong>of</strong><br />

the head <strong>of</strong> the household was matched<br />

from with<strong>in</strong> each <strong>in</strong>come category. It was<br />

difficult to take this to the next stage <strong>of</strong><br />

match<strong>in</strong>g the level <strong>of</strong> education <strong>of</strong> the<br />

head <strong>of</strong> the household <strong>and</strong> hence, this<br />

variable was ignored. However, s<strong>in</strong>ce<br />

<strong>in</strong>come <strong>and</strong> education are generally<br />

seen to be highly correlated, it was<br />

assumed that this might not create very<br />

serious problems. The respondents from<br />

non-<strong>HIV</strong> households were adult males<br />

or females <strong>in</strong> the age group <strong>of</strong> 20-60<br />

years s<strong>in</strong>ce questions on knowledge<br />

<strong>and</strong> awareness about <strong>HIV</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>AIDS</strong><br />

could be answered only by this group.<br />

Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, any household that did not<br />

have a member <strong>in</strong> this age group was not<br />

selected for the survey.<br />

2.1.4 Household questionnaire<br />

The household survey was conducted<br />

us<strong>in</strong>g a structured <strong>in</strong>terview schedule.<br />

Both <strong>HIV</strong> <strong>and</strong> non-<strong>HIV</strong> questionnaires<br />

gathered basic <strong>in</strong>formation like socioeconomic<br />

characteristics <strong>of</strong> all the<br />

household members, household <strong>in</strong>come<br />

<strong>and</strong> expenditure, prevalence <strong>of</strong> morbidity,<br />

Table 2.2<br />

District-wise distribution <strong>of</strong> sample <strong>HIV</strong> households<br />

Districts<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> sample <strong>HIV</strong><br />

households<br />

Number <strong>of</strong> sample non-<strong>HIV</strong><br />

households<br />

Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total<br />

1. Chennai 6 95 101 5 299 304<br />

2. Theni 50 22 72 188 41 229<br />

3. Namakkl 55 14 69 155 43 198<br />

4. Tiruhirappalli 28 31 59 75 99 174<br />

5. Erode 55 13 68 149 37 186<br />

6. Tirunelveli 29 12 41 78 34 112<br />

Total no. <strong>of</strong> households 223 187 410 650 553 1,203<br />

No. <strong>of</strong> PLWHA<br />

<strong>in</strong>terviewed<br />

261 217 478 - - -<br />

16 <strong>Socio</strong>-<strong>Economic</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>HIV</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>AIDS</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Tamil</strong> Nadu, India

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!