Bringing sexy back

Bringing sexy back

by | Sujit Rathod -
Number of replies: 3

Only a couple weeks until World AIDS Day, and with that comes increased media attention around sexual health.


Research shows that when safe sex campaigns acknowledge pleasure — by talking about sex as something that makes life good, or showing how condoms can be erotic — more people use a condom the next time they have sex.

That is what the World Health Organization and a small nongovernmental organization called the Pleasure Project found when they reviewed the results of safer-sex trials and experiments over the past 15 years.

1) What do you think were the comparison groups for the trials/experiments that were included in the review?

Ms. Philpott has a theory. “People who work in sexual health often come from a biomedical background, and they focus on death, danger and disease,” she said. “They’re not encouraged to think of themselves as sexual beings.”

The fact that most sexual and reproductive health programs are delivered by big aid agencies doesn’t help, she added. “There’s an international development narrative that historically comes from a very sex-negative place or a Christian colonial perspective aimed at saving the ‘poor unfortunates.’”

2) How valid is Philpott's theory? How should public health practitioners approach intervention development to avoid these issue?


And another from The Guardian, though I can't come up with many questions for this article, as it seems to be a miscellaneous collection of statistics.

It highlights that the number of STIs recorded among over-65s increased from 2,280 in 2017 to 2,748 in 2019 – a 20% rise.

2) The implication of this sentence is that the observed increase in reported STI diagnoses reflects an actual increase in STI cases. What are some plausible, alternative explanations for the observed increase?

In reply to | Sujit Rathod

Re: Bringing sexy back

by | RANMINI SUMUDITA KULARATNE -
1) Comparison groups

Intervention group: messages around sexual pleasure and enjoyment incorporated into condom promotion (e.g. promotion of condoms as sex toys)

Control group: standard of care messaging - condoms promoted as safe sex intervention to avoid risk of acquiring STIs and HIV

Populations: sexually active adolescents/ adults in STI clinics, other healthcare centres (family planning clinics, youth clinics, men's health clinics)

Outcome: self-reported condom use, new STI/ HIV infections at defined time points

2) More qualitative research e.g. lay counsellors having focus group meetings with at-risk individuals, youth etc to gain more insight into their social and cultural backgrounds, which would assist in formulating engaging and effective messaging around interventions.

3) This is raw data (absolute numbers) - no denominators given. Rates over the two years could be similar. Some could be re-infections in the same at-risk individuals. Other reasons: sampling bias; differences in measurement (more sensitive diagnostic methods used in 2019); easier access to diagnostics in 2019 (home self-test (self-sampling) kits ordered online or obtained at pharmacies).
In reply to | Sujit Rathod

Re: Bringing sexy back

by | ISHITA GUPTA -
1) What do you think were the comparison groups for the trials/experiments that were included in the review?
Group 1: with programs that better reflect the reasons people have sex, including for pleasure
Group 2: programs that do not reflect the central idea of reason for sex or programs that focus on death and disease.

2) How valid is Philpott's theory? How should public health practitioners approach intervention development to avoid these issue?
Strategies to approach intervention development
Community need assessment
Systematic review of previous studies-follow best practices
Culturally appropriate messages
Involving experts from varied sectors such as behavioral scientists, health promotion, communication

The implication of this sentence is that the observed increase in reported STI diagnoses reflects an actual increase in STI cases. What are some plausible, alternative explanations for the observed increase?
With same-sex becoming normal people are approaching health facilities more for an earlier STI
These may be cases of re-infections
Increase in knowledge, awareness and access to tests
Increase in screening or change in screening tools

Thank you.
In reply to | Sujit Rathod

Re: Bringing sexy back

by | FATHIMA MINISHA -
Hi everybody...
Another interesting read... and i guess there is some element of truth when the education campaigns fail to take into account what the audience might like to hear or would find more acceptable or appealing. I totally agree with Ranmini's suggestion for qualitative focus group interviews to understand what people normally would like to hear and would likely respond to... and have the audience be involved in the development of such campaigns as well.
For this review, the control group was receiving standard education about safe sex practices, and the intervention was if there were pleasure components incorporated to the standard.
For the article from Guardian- only numbers are provided. There might be an increase in the number but there might be many differences between 2017 and 2019 like increased testing and therefore more detection of cases, maybe changes in protocols and criteria for diagnosis, increased awareness among this particular age group... and like mentioned already once infected they are always at a risk of reinfections- as I am assuming these figures just represent current infections and not number of first-time diagnosis of STI,,.

Fathima
Accessibility

Background Colour

Font Face

Font Size

1

Text Colour