1 / 35

Pamela Ogata, Research & Evaluation Mike Janson, Research & Evaluation

2003 Countywide Risk Assessment Survey Findings From a Large-scale Multi-site Survey in Los Angeles County. Pamela Ogata, Research & Evaluation Mike Janson, Research & Evaluation Office of AIDS Programs and Policy

fergus
Download Presentation

Pamela Ogata, Research & Evaluation Mike Janson, Research & Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2003 Countywide Risk Assessment SurveyFindings From a Large-scale Multi-site Survey in Los Angeles County Pamela Ogata, Research & Evaluation Mike Janson, Research & Evaluation Office of AIDS Programs and Policy Presented at the Los Angeles HIV Prevention Planning Committee Meeting, January 6, 2004

  2. Antelope Valley San Fernando San Gabriel Metro West South East South Bay Los Angeles County • 4,061 Square Miles • 9.9 Million Residents (Estimated) • Proportion of State Population: 27% (Estimated) • Proportion of State AIDS Cases: 35% • Living with HIV/AIDS: 52,000 (Estimated) 2003 Estimated Population Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau HIV/AIDS Semi-Annual Surveillance Summary, Los Angeles County HIV Epidemiology Program 2

  3. Background One Important Data Source for • Priority Setting • Evaluation of the Linkages Among • HIV Prevention Plan • Resource Allocation • CDC Application • Local Needs Assessment

  4. Provider Trainings • 22 Trainings (May 2003) • 238 Staff from 50 Agencies Attended • Training covered • Sampling Methodology • Survey Instruments and Procedures • IRB and HIPAA protocols • California Mandated Child and Elder Abuse Reporting • On-Site Technical Assistance

  5. CRAS 2003 Participation Surveys • Total Expected: 2,520 • Total Received: 2,107 • Survey Return Rate: 83.6% • Total Completed: 1,847 • Proportion of Surveys Complete: 87.7% Agencies • 47 out of 50 Participated Programs • 164 out of 175 Participated Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  6. Instrument and Eligibility • Four Sections Examine Behavior and Perceptions • Eligibility • Receiving HIV Prevention Services from OAPP-funded Contractor(s) in Los Angeles County • 12 Years of Age or Older • Not Previously Surveyed in 2003 Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  7. Data Collection and Analysis • Surveys Administered May 5 -July 30, 2003 • Agency Staff • One-on-one Interviews • Respondents • Randomly Selected Using Systematic Sampling • Received Compensation (Value $10) • Data Entry • OAPP Staff • Password-protected Database • Data Entry Error Rate was <2% • No Critical Variables Involved

  8. Weighting • Surveys Weighted to Represent Average Number of Prevention Service Clients by Agency • Analyses Conducted on Weighted Sample Equivalent to 5,147

  9. Clients by Service Planning Area N=5147 Percent SPAs Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  10. CRAS Respondents by Gender N=5147 Numbers may not equal 100% due to rounding Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  11. Clients by Age Percent Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  12. CRAS Respondents by Race Ethnicity and Service Planning Area N=5147 Percent Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  13. Selected CRAS Respondents by Education Of participants 25 years of age or older… Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  14. CRAS Respondents by Living Situation Numbers may not equal 100% due to rounding and missing data Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  15. Proportion of CRAS Respondents Who Are Homeless by PPC Priority Percent Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  16. Homeless CRAS Respondents Percent Source: 2001-03 CRAS Data (weighted)

  17. Of CRAS Respondents 22% Born Outside of the United States Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  18. CRAS Respondents and Substance Use • Any Substance 86.9% • Alcohol 71.8% • Tobacco 56.3% • Marijuana 37.3% • Any Drug 56.8% (Excluding Marijuana, Alcohol, Tobacco) • Crack Cocaine 19.1% • Crystal Methamphetamine 15.6% Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  19. CRAS Respondents and Substance Use (Cont’d) • Heroin 14.3% • Cocaine (not crack) 11.4% • Other Opiate 10.9% • Speedball 7.2% • Inhalant 6.8% • Other Amphetamine 6.5% • Club Drugs 6.9% • Other Drugs 6.8% Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  20. CRAS Respondent Drug Use by BRG N=3,684 Percent Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  21. CRAS Respondent Injection Drug Use Of those who injected drugs… Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  22. Sexual Risk BehaviorsHIV-Negative CRAS Respondents Main Casual Partner Partner N=1,825 N=1,716 Had a Main Partner 65.3% Had a Casual Partner(s) 61.4% Median Number Casual Partners 5 Partner(s) HIV-Positive 4.2% 6.0% Did Not Know Partner(s) Serostatus 9.5% 39.3% Partner(s) Injects Drugs 16.1% 17.1% Sex While High 58.1% 65.4% Inconsistent Condom Use 74.1% 59.2% Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  23. Sexual Risk BehaviorsHIV-Positive CRAS Respondents Main Casual Partner Partner N=1,825 N=1,716 Had a Main Partner 61.5% Had a Casual Partner(s) 64.6% Median Number Casual Partners 6 Partner(s) HIV-Positive 53.8% 35.3% Did Not Know Partner(s) Serostatus 8.0% 51.1% Partner(s) Injects Drugs 22.0% 26.2% Sex While High 44.2% 59.8% Inconsistent Condom Use 48.1% 57.2% Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  24. Male CRAS Respondents, Sexual Orientation and Sexual Behavior • Self-Reported Sexual Orientation • 31.7% Heterosexual • 52.6% Gay • 15.7% Bisexual • Sexual Behavior • Proportion of Heterosexual Men who Reported Sex with a Man 13.4% • Proportion of Gay Men Reporting Sex With a Woman <1% Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  25. CRAS Respondents by Behavioral Risk Group (BRG) N=5,147 Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  26. Clients by Behavioral Risk Group (BRG) Percent Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  27. CRAS Respondents by Behavioral Risk Group (BRG) and SPA Percent Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  28. Reported Inconsistent Condom, Barrier Use by PPC Priorities Percent Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  29. CRAS Respondents and HIV Counseling & Testing HE/RR, HCT Clients N=4,903 Ever Received HCT 87.2% Received HCT Results 82.1% HCT Last Six Months 51.2% Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  30. CRAS Respondents and HIV Counseling & Testing (Cont’d) Received HCT Results N=4,021 HIV-Positive 10.1% Positive Result, Last Six Months 4.5% HIV-Negative 82.6% Unknown 5.8% Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  31. CRAS Respondents by HIV Counseling & Testing 2001-2003 (HE/RR, HCT clients) Percent Source: 2001-03 CRAS Data (weighted)

  32. Limitations Limited Time Period May Not Capture All Drug Users May Contribute to the Unknown BRG Category Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  33. Conclusions • CRAS • Provides timely and geographically relevant data. • Shows a need for more focused outreach in communities of color • Suggests a need to refine the targeting of prevention services

  34. Data Requests Please send an e-mail or FAX data request to: Pamela Ogatapogata@dhs.co.la.ca.us or Mike Janson mjanson@dhs.co.la.ca.us Fax: 213/381-8023 Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  35. This presentation is available at www.LAPublicHealth.org/AIDS

More Related