Designing Family-Centered Male Circumcision Services

A Conjoint Analysis Approach
  • John F. P. Bridges
  • Sarah C. Searle
  • Frederic W. Selck
  • Neil A. Martinson
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background: Male circumcision (MC) has become an important weapon in the fight against HIV/AIDS in many Sub-Saharan African countries. The successful implementation of a national MC program requires the design of circumcision services that are attractive to young men of various ages. For many potential clients, mothers and/or fathers will play an important role in the decision to be circumcised, and hence services will need to be designed with the preferences of mothers, fathers, and sons in mind.

Objective: Our objective was to value multiple design characteristics of potential community-based MC services from the perspectives of mothers, fathers, and sons in Johannesburg, South Africa, and to test for concordance between their values for the design characteristics.

Methods: Potential design characteristics of MC services were identified through open-ended interviews with key informants (n=25). Preferences were estimated using conjoint analysis implemented as part of a cluster randomized household survey. Each participant was randomized to receive one of two possible blocks of conjoint analysis, each consisting of six forced-choice tasks comparing two possible MC services varying on 11 design characteristics. With only two levels for each attribute, our experimental design utilized a main effects orthogonal array. Data were analyzed using linear probability models, with tests of concordance of values using Wald tests generated from stratified estimates calculated using restricted least square estimation.

Results: A racially and geographically diverse sample consisting of 204 fathers, 204 mothers, and 237 sons completed the survey. In aggregate, requiring a follow-up visit was the most valued design factor (p< 0.001), followed by having a lower infection rate (p< 0.001), having less pain (p = 0.001), and a private waiting room (p = 0.001). Based on stratified analysis, sons also valued having the risks and benefits of MC explained (p = 0.01) and mothers valued requiring an HIV test as part of the procedure. Requiring an HIV test was the most significant difference between the respondents (p = 0.03), with sons finding it somewhat repulsive (p = 0.30).

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that valuation of aspects of MC clinic design can diverge by decision maker. To better ensure utilization of services, these variations should be taken into account to prior to implementation of a national strategy in South Africa.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by a grant from the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), through the US Agency for International Development (USAID) [award no. 674-A-00-05-00003-00]. Neil A. Martinson received support from a Fogarty International Center grant (grant no. U2RTW007370).

JB and NM were responsible for the qualitative research and survey instrument design. JB, FS, and SS did the statistical analysis. All authors were involved in manuscript preparation and reviewed the final manuscript. JB is the guarantor for the overall content of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, et al. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: the ANRS 1265 trial. PLoS Med 2005; 2(11): e298PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007; 369(9562): 643–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet 2007; 369(9562): 657–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UN-AIDS). Safe, voluntary, informed male circumcision and comprehensive HIV prevention programming: guidance for decision-makers on human rights, ethical and legal considerations. Geneva: WHO, 2008Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    World Health Organization and Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). Male circumcision for HIV prevention: research implications for policy and programming. WHO/UNAIDS technical consultation, 6–8 March 2007. Conclusions and recommendations (excerpts). Reprod Health Matters 2007; 15(29): 11–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Department of Health. NDOH annual report 2008/09: the Government Communication and Information System (GCIS). Pretoria: National Department of Health, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hst.org.za/ publications/ndoh-annual-report-200809 [Accessed 2012 Mar 5]Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Varga CA. Sexual decision-making and negotiation in the midst of AIDS: youth in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Health Transition Review 1997; 7(Suppl. 3): 45–67Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campbell C, Foulis CA, Maimane S, et al. The impact of social environments on the effectiveness of youth HIV prevention: a South African case study. AIDS Care 2005; 17(4): 471–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paruk Z, Petersen I, Bhana A, et al. Containment and contagion: how to strengthen families to support youth HIV prevention in South Africa. African J AIDS Res 2005; 4(1): 57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Binner SL, Mastrobattista JM, Day MC, et al. Effect of parental education on decision-making about neonatal circumcision. South Med J 2002; 95(4): 457–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Westercamp N, Bailey RC. Acceptability of male circumcision for prevention of HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa: a review. AIDS Behav 2007; 11(3): 341–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Madhivanan P, Krupp K, Chandrasekaran V, et al. Acceptability of male circumcision among mothers with male children in Mysore, India. AIDS 2008; 22(8): 983–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bridges J, Selck F, Gray G, et al. Condom avoidance and determinants of demand for male circumcision in Johannesburg, South Africa. Health Policy Plan 2011; 26(4): 298–306PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Godlonton S, Munthali A, Thornton R. Male circumcision in Malawi: new data on behavior and attitudes [working paper]. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan, 2010Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bridges J, Searle S, Selck F, et al. Engaging families in the design of social marketing strategies for male circumcision services in Johannesburg, South Africa. Soc Mar Q 2010; 16(3): 60–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bridges J, Hanson R, Little M, et al. Ethical relationships in paediatric emergency medicine: moving beyond the dyad. Emerg Med 2001; 13(3): 344–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yeh M, Weis JR. Why are we here at the clinic? Parent-child (dis)agreement on referral problems at outpatient treatment entry. J Consult Clin Psychol 2001; 69(6): 1018–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2(1): 55–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bridges J, Kinter E, Kidane L, et al. Things are looking up since we started listening to patients: trends in the application of conjoint analysis in health 1982–2007. Patient 2008; 1(4): 273–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marshall D, Bridges J, Hauber AB, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health — how are studies being designed and reported? An update on current practice in the published literature between 2005 and 2008. Patient 2010; 3(4): 249–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Akkazieva B, Gulacsi L, Brandtmuller A, et al. Patients’ preferences for healthcare system reforms in Hungary: a conjoint analysis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2006; 5(3): 189–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Opuni M, Bishai D, Gray GE, et al. Preferences for characteristics of antiretroviral therapy provision in Johannesburg, South Africa: results of a conjoint analysis. AIDS Behav 2010; 14(4): 807–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ryan M, McIntosh E, Shackley P. Using conjoint analysis to elicit the views of health service users: an application to the patient health card. Health Expect 1998; 1(2): 117–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bridges JF. Stated preference methods in health care evaluation: an emerging methodological paradigm in health economics. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2(4): 213–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Orme BK. Getting started with conjoint analysis. Madison (WI): Research Publishers LLC, 2006Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shisana O, Rehle T, Simbayi LC, et al. South African national HIV prevalence, incidence, behaviour and communication survey, 2008. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council Press, 2009Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith JA, Flowers P, Larkin M. Interpretive phenomenological analysis: theory, method, and research. London: Sage, 2009Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Eaton L, Kalichman SC. Behavioral aspects of male circumcision for the prevention of HIV infection. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2009; 6(4): 187–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UN-AIDS). Male circumcision & HIV prevention in Eastern & Southern Africa: communications guidance. Geneva: UNAIDS, 2008Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lukobo MD, Bailey RC. Acceptability of male circumcision for prevention of HIV infection in Zambia. AIDS Care 2007; 19(4): 471–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Scott BE, Weiss HA, Viljoen JI. The acceptability of male circumcision as an HIV intervention among a rural Zulu population, Kwazulu-natal, South Africa. AIDS Care 2005; 17(3): 304–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shisana O, Simbayi L. Nelson Mandela HSRC study of HIV/AIDS: full report of South African national HIV prevalence, behavioural risks and mass media. Household survey 2002. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council Press, 2002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • John F. P. Bridges
    • 1
  • Sarah C. Searle
    • 1
    • 2
  • Frederic W. Selck
    • 1
  • Neil A. Martinson
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Health Policy and ManagementJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Department of International HealthJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Perinatal HIV Research UnitUniversity of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa
  4. 4.Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations