AEGiS-05IAC: "Groups at risk" and "risk behaviors": the need to utilize both concepts in describing target populations for educational interventions and defining their objectives.

5th International AIDS Conference

Montreal, Quebec, Canada — Jun 4-9, 1989

“GROUPS AT RISK” AND “RISK BEHAVIORS”: THE NEED TO UTILIZE BOTH CONCEPTS IN DESCRIBING TARGET POPULATIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS AND DEFINING THEIR OBJECTIVES

Int Conf AIDS 1989 Jun 4-9; 5:162 (abstract no. A.508)

Shtarkshall RA
The Hebrew University & Hadassah Faculty of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel

The central claim of the paper is that the two concepts, "groups at risk" and "risk behavior" are neither synonymous nor interchangeable, and that in order to describe target groups for educational or other interventions, both terms are needed. "Risk behavior" or its prevalence is only one component of the definition of a "group at risk;" its other component being the prevalence of HIV within that group. A comparison of two hypothetical groups, since the data on the sexual behavior of actual sub-groups are only approximate, will clarify the distinction between the two concepts.

“RISK GROUP”	PREVALENCE OF HIV IN THE GROUP	PREVALENCE OF RISK BEHAVIOR IN THE GROUP*	CHARACTERIZATION OF THE GROUP

A	high	high	a group at immediate risk
B	low	high	a group at future risk (vulnarable)
C	high	low**	low risk unless conditions change***

* “Risk behaviors” in sexual sexual practices are: multiple partners, low use of contraceptives in general and condoms in particular and high experimentation and variation in sexual practices (including insertive intercourse and/or anal intercourse). ** the prvalence may not be of a behavior but of a condition, i.e., a hemophiliac receiving an infected component. *** A situation may arise in which the group itself is no longer a “group at risk” because of changing conditions, but its characterization will help discern another group at risk.

Groups A and B approximate homosexuals/bisexuals and adolescents in Israel, respectively, while group C may represent the sub-population of hemophiliacs after the introduction of sterilized factors. It is argued that from the point of view of public health, health planning, and the design of educational interventions, both concepts are essential, since educational interventions for a group at future risk should differ from those for a group at immediate risk not only because of the characteristics of the group but also because of the characteristics of the risk. "Groups at risk" is therefore a useful and necessary term.

1989-06-04
A508

Download PDF of this abstract.