Stigma Consciousness, Coping Strategies And Cd4 Counts Of Persons With Hiv/aids

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

To determine the level to which stigma consciousness, social support, information and problem copings contributed to immune system functioning measured using CD4 counts among PLWHA (People Living With HIV/AIDS), a 4–way analysis of variance statistic was performed using statistical package for social sciences (SPSS). Different levels of stigma consciousness (low and high), social support (low and high) and types of information coping (seeking and avoidance) and problem coping (focus and avoidance) were treated as independent variables while CD4 counts of PLWHA were measured as dependent variable. The results of data analysis that tested the propositions earlier stated for this study and their interpretations were presented in the sections that follow.

The results of 4-way analysis of variance that tested the four hypotheses produced significant main effects in each case (See Table 2). Stigma consciousness produced significant main effect on the CD4 counts of people living with HIV/AIDS used in this study. Those who were of low stigma consciousness scored (M= 452.79; SD = 206.77) whereas those of high stigma consciousness had score (M=286.19; SD = 156.58), F(1,414)= 35.52, P= 001. Therefore, the hypothesis which stated that those people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) who scored low in stigma consciousness scale would have higher immune system, as measured using CD4 counts, than those who scored high in stigma consciousness measure was confirmed.

Also, similar statistic that tested the second proposition produced significant main effect. Those PLWHA who were high in social support scored (M = 437.49; SD = 197.03) as against their counterparts who scored low in social support and had CD4 counts score (M = 258.29, SD = 156.12), F(1,414) = 28.42, P = 001. Therefore, the prediction that those who scored high in social support measures would also score high in CD4 counts among PLWHA used in this study was upheld.

Similarly, a significant difference was found between those who avoid information and those who seek information on their immune system as measured in CD4 counts. Those who avoid information scored (M = 251.93; SD = 149.53) less than those that seek information who scored (M = 409.74; SD = 202.18), F (1,414) = 37.76; P = 001. Thus, the hypothesis which proposed that those who seek information would score more than those who avoid information in CD4 counts was also confirmed.

Finally, problem coping produced significant main effect on CD4 counts of PLWHA used in this study. Those who focus on problem scored (M = 387.65; SD = 200.42) more than those who avoid problem that scored (M = 348.41; SD = 204.58), F (1.414) = 3.81, P = 05. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis which stated that those who focus on problem would score more than those who avoid problem in CD4 counts among PLWHA was also confirmed. However, none of the interaction effects tested was significant (see Table 2).

Notes

SS = Type III sum of square

df = degree of freedom

Ms = Mean square

F = ANOVA value

Sig.= Significant; *S= significance for main effects; **n.s.= non

significant interaction effects.

P = Probability (.05)

Lstigmac = levels of stigma consciousness

Levsocsu = Levels of social support

Typeoinf = Type of information coping

Typeofpc = Type of problem coping.

Interestingly, after entering treatment as a control measure, that is those who used drugs and those who did not use drug, three of the independent variables which included stigma consciousness, social support, information coping produced significant effects. Treatment itself was also significant but not problem coping (see Table 3). The interaction effects were still not significant, and were not include in the table of covariate.