Determinants of intention to get tested for STI/HIV among the Surinamese and Antilleans in the Netherlands: results of an online survey.

BACKGROUND: High infection rates of STIs are found among the different ethnic communities living in the Netherlands, especially among the Surinamese and Dutch-Antilleans. Only limited effective interventions that promote STI/HIV testing among these communities are available in the Netherlands. In the present study we identified the determinants of the intention to get tested for STI/HIV of the sexually active Surinamese and Dutch-Antilleans living in the Netherlands. Secondly, this study assesses which determinants should be addressed when promoting STI/HIV testing among these communities. METHODS: In total, 450 Surinamese and 303 Dutch-Antillean respondents were recruited through Dutch Internet panels and group activities. The questionnaire used in the online survey was based on the concepts of the Health Belief Model, the Social Cognitive Theory, and Theory of Planned behavior. To correct for multiple outcome testing, we considered differences as statistically significant at p<.01 for all analyses. For the multivariate linear regression analysis, variables that were significant were entered into the model block-wise. RESULTS: Health motivation, cues to action, subjective norms, risk behavior, test history, open communication about sexuality, and marital status were important (univariate) predictors of the intention to get tested for STI/HIV for both the Surinamese and Dutch-Antillean respondents. For both the Surinamese and Dutch-Antilleans, subjective norms were the most salient predictor of the intention to get tested in multivariate analyses, explaining 10% and 13% of the variance respectively; subjective norms had a direct influence on the intention for both the Surinamese and the Dutch-Antilleans. CONCLUSIONS: The strong correlation and predictive power of subjective norms on the intention to get tested for STI/HIV, endorses the importance of focusing on community-based intervention rather than focusing on personal determinants, to change the present perceptions and attitudes towards testing. Health promoting programs should be aimed at promoting open communication regarding sexuality and testing. Stimulating each other to get tested frequently could also help achieving the desired behavior.

[Mexican flu: risk perception in the general public, precautionary measures and trust in information provided by the government]. / Mexicaanse griep: risicoperceptie bij de bevolking, eigen maatregelen en vertrouwen in overheidsinformatie.

OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into how the Dutch general public viewed the risk during the course of the recent pandemic, into how many and which people took precautionary measures, and into the extent to which people trust the information provided by the government. DESIGN: Online survey, cross-sectional (the first two measurements) and follow-up investigations (the last two measurements). METHOD: Between 10 and 17 November 2009, 754 people completed the online questionnaire. Earlier survey rounds were held in May (n = 572), June (n = 620) and August (n = 934). RESULTS: In November 2009, 38% of respondents considered the Mexican flu a serious disease and 36% viewed themselves as vulnerable to this flu. Feelings of anxiety had decreased versus earlier survey rounds. Of the respondents, 73% took precautionary measures against the disease. This concerned mainly hygiene measures, which were most frequently taken by people who were anxious, found hygiene measures effective, paid considerable attention to the media information on flu, and found information from the government reliable and those without children living at home. More than fifty percent (58%) of respondents indicated that they would be willing to have the vaccination if they would be eligible for this. Of the other 315 respondents, 40% indicated that they feared serious side effects, 35% that they doubted the effectiveness of the vaccine and 33% that they considered the vaccine to be insufficiently tested. Almost half of the respondents had read the information leaflet 'Fight the flu', which was sent to every home in the country. One third had seen the television campaign. Governmental institutions, notably the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, were the most important sources of information and more than half of the respondents trusted this information. CONCLUSION: During the course of the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, anxiety among the Dutch general public decreased progressively, while people increasingly considered themselves more vulnerable to the flu. The public therefore had a realistic view of the situation. Three quarters of the general public had taken precautionary measures against the flu. More than fifty percent would be willing to have the vaccination if they would be eligible for this. The most important reason for not wanting the vaccination was fear of serious side effects and doubts about the effectiveness of the vaccine. This is a point of attention for the development of public information campaigns about vaccinations in the future.