B5gv9

the case of rural areas, if it was a relatively
small village, all the households in the
village were listed. In the case of a large
village, a sampling fraction was used
and every second, third or fourth
household was listed depending upon
the size of the village. A maximum of 150
households were listed in each selected
village. Similarly, in urban areas, around
100 households were listed in each
block.
In the listing sheet, information on
the socio-economic characteristics of
the households was gathered which
consisted mainly of the income of
the household and occupational and
educational status of the head of the
household. At the first step, the matching
was done on the basis of the broad
income category of the household,
i.e., the frequency distribution was in
terms of the income groups of the HIV
households. At the second stage, the
occupational group of the head of the
household was matched from within
each income category. It was difficult
to take it to the next stage of matching
the level of education of the head of the
household and hence, this variable was
ignored. However, since income and
education are generally seen to be highly
correlated, it was assumed that this
might not create very serious problems.
Selection of non-HIV households by this
process would ensure that the findings
of the survey would be better at the
aggregate level since the variation in
the sample was being captured. The
respondents from non-HIV households
were adult men or women in the age
group of 20-60 years since it is the most
relevant group to answer questions
on knowledge and awareness about
HIV and AIDS. Accordingly, any
household that did not have a member
in this age group was not selected for
the survey.
In all, the survey covered 2,068 HIV
h o u s e h o l d s a n d 6 , 2 2 4 n o n - H I V
households spread over the rural and
urban areas of six HIV high-prevalence
states. The number of PLWHA interviewed
was higher at 2,386, since wherever there
was more than one adult PLWHA in a
family, an attempt was made to interview
the second person also. The state-wise
distribution of the sample households is
presented in Table 2.3.
The questionnaire
for the HIV
households was
designed to
collect additional
information about
the HIV status of
the person, stigma
and discrimination
in the family,
community,
workplace,
health facilities
and educational
institutions
Table 2.3
State-wise distribution of sample HIV households
State Number of sample HIV HHs Number of sample non-HIV HHs
Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total
Andhra Pradesh 189 211 400 528 718 1,246
Karnataka 199 202 401 580 622 1,202
Maharashtra 147 256 403 439 769 1,208
Tamil Nadu 223 187 410 650 553 1,203
Manipur 81 173 254 232 529 761
Nagaland 51 149 200 174 430 604
Total no. of
890 1,178 2,068 2,603 3,621 6,224
households
No. of PLWHA
interviewed
1,045 1,341 2,386 -- -- --
Data and Methodology 21