Library

Resource

Research/service provider collaboration

How Can Service Providers and Researchers Collaborate in HIV Prevention?

Why collaborate?

“Research on HIV prevention—no matter how good—does not stop HIV infection. HIV behavioral research can only stop HIV infection when results of the research can be used to make applied programs better.”1 -Jeff Kelly

Everyone working in HIV prevention wants to know that their efforts make a difference towards halting the spread of HIV. When researchers and community-based organizations (CBOs) collaborate, the outcome can be better community programs and better science, resulting in improved HIV prevention. Researchers need to learn about how health education and community organizing programs function in order to evaluate or create interventions that are feasible in real world settings. They also need to gain access to research participants (clients of CBOs) and disseminate research findings in the most useful way. Working with CBOs and their clients can improve research.”2 The mission of most CBOs is program delivery, not evaluation. CBOs may need to collaborate with a researcher when using tested interventions, evaluating ongoing programs and incorporating theory into intervention design. Working with researchers can improve programs.”3 Federal, state, local and private funders are increasingly requiring CBOs both to use theory in designing programs and to evaluate their programs.

What does collaboration involve?

Researchers and service providers can work together in many ways and the degree of collaboration can vary. Collaboration can be a simple act that is not very time consuming, such as CBOs getting help with questions on a survey or researchers learning more about client populations. Even if the relationship between a researcher and service provider is limited, there are ways to bring the expertise of all participants together and optimize outcomes of their joint work. Collaboration can also be relatively complex and time- and resource-intensive. Service providers and researchers may collaborate on program evaluation, program design, data analysis or research. Typically, these collaborations involve 1) selecting the researcher and CBO partner; 2) developing a relationship; 3) deciding on a research or programmatic question; 4) conducting the research or evaluation; 5) analyzing and interpreting the data; and 6) disseminating the findings.”4 The last step in the collaboration would involve developing programs based on the research findings.

What are barriers to collaboration?

Collaboration can be understood as a cross-cultural experience: a meeting of the culture of research and the culture of CBOs. Researchers and providers have distinct work cultures including norms, incentives, jargon, sense of time, resources, training, education, and expectations, that are often at odds with each other.”5 For example, CBO staff often must respond to clients with immediate needs. Researchers, on the other hand, often work on 2-5 year grants with more long-term objectives. While their common goal may be slowing the epidemic, each has different contributions and strategies for achieving that end. Often CBOs mistrust researchers. Researchers are seen as “using” the CBO, collecting data with no return of information and taking all of the credit.”6 Service providers often see researchers as over-resourced. For example, CBO staff may be paid far less than the researchers they collaborate with. On the other hand, researchers are often frustrated by the fast pace, limited staff time and lack of prioritization of research activities found in CBOs. An inherent power imbalance exists when researchers and CBOs work together on research projects. Researchers are often seen as “experts” by virtue of their academic degree. The expertise of CBO staff—knowledge of the community, understanding how interventions work and access to the population—is often overlooked and undervalued by researchers.

What’s being done?

One simple yet vital method of collaboration is making sure that data collected by the researcher is available to CBOs to use. The University of British Columbia in Canada conducted a large-scale study of health care and community resources used by persons living with HIV/AIDS. After the study, they hired a Community Liaison Researcher to work with CBOs to jointly determine their information needs, and conduct tailored analyses of the large and valuable database for use in CBO programs.”7 Another more complex method of collaboration involves working together from the beginning to develop programs. The San Francisco AIDS Foundation (SFAF) wanted to understand why gay/bisexual men were continuing to become HIV-infected. They initiated a collaboration with CAPS, UCSF to conduct qualitative research among high-risk men. SFAF and research staff met weekly to discuss the research question, design the instrument and discuss the transcripts. This led to the agencies collaboratively developing and evaluating two interventions and a media campaign. The programs, Gay Life and Black Brothers Esteem, are ongoing.”8 Collaborations often require a solid infrastructure for support. In San Francisco, CA, the CAPS collaboration initiative provided funding, training, supervision, technical assistance and researcher pairing for CBOs to conduct program evaluation. This initiative was jointly funded through the university and private funders. CBOs developed research questions and conducted evaluation with the aid of researchers. Findings were disseminated through public forums and a special issue of a journal. This collaborative model has been replicated across the US.”9

What are best practices?

Although collaborating can be a resource and labor-intensive activity, the benefits for the CBO, researcher and the field of HIV prevention are worth the investment. The following recommendations can help ensure a successful experience:10,11

  • Choose CBO or researcher partners carefully. Interview several different individuals or agencies. Always ask for and check references.
  • Establish buy-in, input and ownership from agency staff and directors.
  • Define roles and responsibilities clearly and repeatedly.
  • Plan and budget for time for CBO-researcher communication and meetings.
  • Address conflict when it arises.
  • Allow flexibility to modify or change the scope of research.
  • Expect staff turnover and allow time to orient and train new staff.
  • Support agencies to build capacity before engaging in outcome research. Formative, descriptive and theory-development research are useful; outcome evaluation is not always the best choice for new interventions or new CBOs.
  • Build a safety net into the research design. If you are evaluating a new intervention, make sure to include alternative research questions from the start.
  • Plan for community dissemination strategies throughout all stages of research.
  • Jointly monitor for research quality control.
  • Secure adequate resources and support for intervention and evaluation time.

What supports collaboration?

There are some recent initiatives that support collaborative work, including federal, foundation and university grants. Funders, however, still need to set aside money for researchers and CBOs to work together, and the requirement for this should be structured into the grant.”12 This way, much-needed program funds aren’t diverted into research. Local and state health departments can help by matching CBOs and researchers and then fostering the collaboration. In addition to requiring adequate funding, collaboration requires time, energy and commitment. Without support for these basic requirements, the ultimate goal of collaboration—more effective HIV prevention—will not be achieved.

Says who?

1. Kelly JA, Somlai AM, DiFranceisco WJ, et al. Bridging the gap between the science and service of HIV prevention: transferring effective research-based HIV prevention interventions to community AIDS service providers . American Journal of Public Health. 2000;90:1082-1088. 2. Schensul JJ. O rganizing community research partnerships in the struggle against AIDS . Health Education & Behavior. 1999; 26:266-283. 3. Holtgrave DR, Qualls NL, Curran JW, et al. An overview of the effectiveness and efficiency of HIV prevention programs . Public Health Reports. 1995;110:134-146. 4. Harper GW, Salinan DD. Building collaborative partnerships to improve community-based HIV prevention research: The university-CBO collaborative partnership (UCCP) model. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community. 2000;19:1-20. 5. Gomez C, Goldstein E. The HIV prevention evaluation initiative: a model for collaborative and empowerment evaluation. In: The Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability . Fetterman, Wandersman and Kaftarian, eds. Sage Publications, 1995. 6. Perkins DD, Wandersman A. “You’ll have to overcome our suspicions”: the benefits and pitfalls of research with community organizations. Social Policy. 1990;21:32-41. 7. James S, Hanvelt R, Copley T. The role of the Community Liaison Researcher- returning research to the community. Presented at the AIDS Impact Conference, Ottawa. July 15-18, 1999. 8. Bey J, Durazzo R, Headlee J, et al. Prevention among african american gay and bisexual men. Presented at the 8th International AIDS Conference, Durban, South Africa. Abst# WePeD4523. 9. Haynes Sanstad K, Stall R, Goldtsein E, et al. Collaborative Community Research Consortium: a model for HIV prevention. Health Education & Behavior. 1999;26:171-184. 10. Goldstein E, Freedman B, Richards A, et al. The Legacy Project: lessons learned about conducting community-based research. Published by the AIDS Research Institute, University of California San Francisco, Science to Community series. 2000. prevention.ucsf.edu/uploads/bibindex.php . 11. Acuff C, Archambeault J, Greenberg B, et al. Mental health care for people living with or affected by HIV/AIDS: A practical guide. Published by the Research Triangle Institute. 1999. #6031. 12. DiFranceisco W, Kelly JA, Otto-Salaj L. Factors influencing attitudes within AIDS service organizations toward the use of research-based HIV prevention interventions . AIDS Education and Prevention. 1999;11:72-86. Resources: Behavioral and Social Science Volunteer Program (BSSV) American Psychological Association 750 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C., 20002-4242 202/218-3993 Fax: 202/336-6198 e-mail: [email protected] https://www.apa.org/topics/hiv-aids HIV Community-Based Research www.cbrc.net Loka Institute PO Box 355 Amherst, MA 01004 413/559-5860 https://centerhealthyminds.org/programs/loka-initiative 

PREPARED BY Ellen Goldstein MA*, Beth Freedman MPH*, Dan Wohlfeiler MPH** *CAPS, **STD Prevention Training Center April 2001. Fact Sheet #40E

Reproduction of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California San Franciso should be cited as the source of this information. For additional copies of this and other HIV Prevention Fact Sheets, please call the National Prevention Information Network at 800/458-5231. Comments and questions about this Fact Sheet may be e-mailed to [email protected]. ©April 2001, University of California

Resource

Colaboración entre proveedores e investigadores

¿Cómo pueden colaborar los proveedores de servicio y los investigadores?

¿por qué colaborar?

“La investigación sobre la prevención del VIH-por muy buena que sea-no detiene la infección del VIH. La investigación del comportamiento sobre el VIH sólo puede detener la infección del VIH si sus resultados se utilizan en el mejoramiento de programas ya implementados.”1 -Jeff Kelly

Toda persona que trabaja en el área de prevención de VIH quiere lograr disminuir la propagación del VIH. Cuando los investigadores y las agencias comunitarias (CBO por sus siglas en inglés) colaboran es posible mejorar los programas comunitarios, las investigaciones científicas y por consiguiente los esfuerzos de prevención del VIH. Para evaluar y realizar programas de prevención que sean útiles en las comunidades, los investigadores han de comprender cómo funcionan los programas de educación para la salud y de organización comunitaria, cómo tener acceso a las poblaciones que estudian (las mismas que atienden las CBO), y las maneras mas útiles de divulgación de resultados. Estos recursos se obtienen al colaborar con las CBO y pueden contribuir al mejoramiento de las investigaciones.2 La misión de muchas CBO es impartir programas, no evaluarlos. Éstas podrían requerir de colaborar con investigadores al utilizar intervenciones ya comprobadas, evaluar programas en operación o para incorporar elementos teóricos en el diseño de una intervención. Trabajar con los investigadores puede ayudar a mejorar los programas.3 En EEUU los financiamientos federales, estatales, locales y privados requieren cada vez más que las CBO utilicen la teoría en el diseño de sus programas y que evaluen estos programas.

¿qué implica la colaboración?

Los investigadores y proveedores de servicio pueden trabajar juntos de muchas formas, y el grado de colaboración puede variar. La colaboración puede ser una acción simple y de corta duración, como ayudar a una CBO en la formulación de preguntas para una encuesta o cuando los investigadores quieren saber más sobre la población que las CBO sirven. Aún si la relación entre investigador y proveedor de servicios es limitada, hay maneras de combinar la experiencia y las habilidades de ambos y de optimizar los resultados del trabajo en conjunto. La colaboración también puede ser relativamente compleja y requerir de tiempo y recursos. Los proveedores de servicio y los investigadores pueden colaborar en la evaluación de programas, diseño de programas, y/o en el análisis datos. Generalmente, esta colaboración implica 1) seleccionar al colaborador (ya sea el investigador o la CBO); 2) crear la relación entre sí; 3) decidir qué se va a investigar (la pregunta de investigación); 4) conducir la investigación o la evaluación; 5) analizar e interpretar la información; 6) divulgar los resultados.4 El último paso en la colaboración podría implicar la creación de programas basados en los resultados de la investigación.

¿qué obstáculos enfrenta la colaboración?

La colaboración puede ser interpretada como el encuentro entre dos culturas: la cultura de la investigación y la de las CBO. Tanto investigadores como proveedores de servicio poseen culturas de trabajo particulares que incluyen ciertas normas, incentivos, lenguaje, percepción de tiempos, recursos, capacitación, educación y expectativas que a menudo difieren entre sí.5 Por ejemplo, las CBO deben resolver las necesidades inmediatas de sus afiliados mientras que los investigadores generalmente trabajan en proyectos de 2-5 años de duración con objetivos a largo plazo. A menudo las CBO desconfían de los investigadores pues se sienten “usadas” por los mismos para la recolección sus datos, toman todo el crédito y no proporcionan la información a cambio.6 También llegan a sentir que los investigadores tienen un exceso de recursos; por ejemplo, el personal de una CBO llega a recibir salarios muy por debajo de los que sus colaboradores investigadores reciben. Por otro lado los investigadores a menudo se frustran por el ritmo acelerado de las CBO, la falta de personal y la falta de prioridad para las actividades de investigación. Cuando la CBO y el investigador colaboran en un proyecto, existe un desbalance de poder inherente. A los investigadores se les percibe como “expertos” por su grado académico. La sabiduría de las CBO-conocimiento de la comunidad, del funcionamiento de intervenciones y su acceso a la población-algo que los investigadores subestiman y pasan por alto.

¿qué se está haciendo?

Un método sencillo pero vital de colaboración es asegurarse que los datos recolectados por el investigador estén a disponibilidad de la CBO. La Universidad de British Columbia en Canadá, realizó un estudio a gran escala sobre cómo utilizan los sistemas de salud y los recursos comunitarios las personas que viven con VIH/SIDA. Después del estudio, se contrató a un investigador de enlace comunitario para que trabajara con las CBO y juntos determinaran las necesidades de información de las mismas y analizaran la enorme y valiosa base de datos del estudio para ser usada en los programas de las CBO.7 Otro método de colaboración más complejo, implica trabajar juntos desde el inicio para el desarrollo de programas. La Fundación de SIDA de San Francisco (SFAF sus siglas en inglés) quería entender porqué los hombres gay/bisexuales continuaban infectándose con el VIH, por lo que inició una investigación cualitativa con hombres de alto riesgo en colaboración con CAPS-UCSF. La SFAF y los investigadores se reunían semanalmente a comentar la pregunta de investigación, el diseño del instrumento y a discutir las transcripciones de entrevistas. Desarrollaron y evaluaron dos intervenciones y una campaña publicitaria. Como producto de esta colaboración, los programas Gay Life y Black Brothers Esteem continúan operando.8 La colaboración a menudo requiere del apoyo de una infraestructura sólida. En San Francisco, la iniciativa de colaboración de CAPS brindó fondos, capacitación, supervisión, asistencia técnica y compaginó investigadores con CBO para efectuar la evaluación de programas. Esta iniciativa fue financiada conjuntamente por la universidad y fundaciones privadas. Las CBO formularon las preguntas de investigación y realizaron la evaluación con ayuda de los investigadores. Los resultados fueron divulgados en foros públicos y a través de un ejemplar especial de una revista científica. Este modelo colaborativo ha sido replicado a lo largo de los EEUU.9

¿cuáles son las mejores prácticas?

Aunque colaborar puede ser una actividad intensa de trabajo y de recursos, los beneficios para la CBO, el investigador y el campo de la prevención del VIH ameritan la inversión. Las siguientes recomendaciones pueden ayudar a asegurar una experiencia satisfactoria:10,11

  • Escoger cuidadosamente al colaborador (CBO o investigador). Entrevistar varios individuos y agencias. Pedir y revisar sus referencias.
  • La agencia debe generar un interés y sentido de pertenencia entre sus directivos y su personal hacia el proyecto.
  • Definir roles y responsabilidades clara y repetidamente.
  • Planear y presupuestar el tiempo empleado por el investigador y la CBO para comunicarse y reunirse.
  • Resolver conflictos en la medida que surjan.
  • Tener flexibilidad en cuanto a posibles cambios en el ámbito y/o amplitud de la investigación.
  • Anticipar cambios de personal y anticipar tiempo para orientar y adiestrar al nuevo personal.
  • Ayudar a capacitar a la agencia antes de iniciar una investigación .La investigación formativa, la descriptiva y la de desarrollo teórico son de mucha utilidad; la evaluación de los resultados no es siempre la mejor opción para nuevas intervenciones o nuevas CBO.
  • Diseñar una investigación que tenga “una protección”, es decir, si se está evaluando una nueva intervención, quizá se deba incluir desde el inicio preguntas de investigación alternas.
  • Planear estrategias de divulgación a la comunidad en todas las fases de la investigación.
  • Monitorear conjuntamente el control de calidad de la investigación.
  • Asegurar que se tengan los recursos y apoyo adecuados para el momento de la intervención y de la evaluación.

¿qué sostiene a la colaboración?

Existen algunas iniciativas recientes por medio de becas y subvenciones federales, privadas y universitarias. Sin embargo los proveedores de fondos deben continuar designando dinero para el trabajo conjunto entre investigadores y CBO, y este requisito deberá estar estructurado dentro de la propuesta de solicitud de fondos (grant);12 así los fondos tan requeridos para los programas no irán sólo hacia la investigación. La colaboración, además de requerir de fondos adecuados requiere de tiempo, energía y compromiso. Sin éstos requerimientos básicos la meta final de la colaboración-una prevención del VIH más efectiva-no se logrará.

¿quién lo dice?

1. Kelly JA, Somlai AM, DiFranceisco WJ, et al. Bridging the gap between the science and service of HIV prevention: transferring effective research-based HIV prevention interventions to community AIDS service providers . American Journal of Public Health. 2000;90:1082-1088. 2. Schensul JJ. O rganizing community research partnerships in the struggle against AIDS . Health Education & Behavior. 1999; 26:266-283. 3. Holtgrave DR, Qualls NL, Curran JW, et al. An overview of the effectiveness and efficiency of HIV prevention programs . Public Health Reports. 1995;110:134-146. 4. Harper GW, Salinan DD. Building collaborative partnerships to improve community-based HIV prevention research: The university-CBO collaborative partnership (UCCP) model. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community. 2000;19:1-20. 5. Gomez C, Goldstein E. The HIV prevention evaluation initiative: a model for collaborative and empowerment evaluation. In: The Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability . Fetterman, Wandersman and Kaftarian, eds. Sage Publications, 1995. 6. Perkins DD, Wandersman A. “You’ll have to overcome our suspicions”: the benefits and pitfalls of research with community organizations. Social Policy. 1990;21:32-41. 7. James S, Hanvelt R, Copley T. The role of the Community Liaison Researcher- returning research to the community. Presented at the AIDS Impact Conference, Ottawa. July 15-18, 1999. 8. Bey J, Durazzo R, Headlee J, et al. Prevention among african american gay and bisexual men. Presented at the 8th International AIDS Conference, Durban, South Africa. Abst# WePeD4523. 9. Haynes Sanstad K, Stall R, Goldtsein E, et al. Collaborative Community Research Consortium: a model for HIV prevention. Health Education & Behavior. 1999;26:171-184. 10. Goldstein E, Freedman B, Richards A, et al. The Legacy Project: lessons learned about conducting community-based research. Published by the AIDS Research Institute, University of California San Francisco, Science to Community series. 2000. 11. Acuff C, Archambeault J, Greenberg B, et al. Mental health care for people living with or affected by HIV/AIDS: A practical guide. Published by the Research Triangle Institute. 1999. #6031. 12. DiFranceisco W, Kelly JA, Otto-Salaj L. Factors influencing attitudes within AIDS service organizations toward the use of research-based HIV prevention interventions . AIDS Education and Prevention. 1999;11:72-86.

Recursos:

Behavioral and Social Science Volunteer Program (BSSV) American Psychological Association 750 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C., 20002-4242 202/218-3993 Fax: 202/336-6198  https://www.apa.org/pi/aids/resources/exchange/2013/01/bssv-program  HIV Community-Based Research www.cbrc.net Loka Institute PO Box 355 Amherst, MA 01004 413/559-5860 https://centerhealthyminds.org/programs/loka-initiative

Preparado por Ellen Goldstein MA*, Beth Freedman MPH*, Dan Wohlfeiler MPH**; Traducción Romy Benard-Rodríguez y Maricarmen Arjona *CAPS, **STD Prevention Training Center Septiembre 2001. Hoja Informativa 40S

Resource

Theory

What is the role of theory in HIV prevention?

What is theory and how can it help?

A theory describes what factors or relationships influence behavior and/or environment and provides direction on how to impact them. Theories used in HIV prevention are drawn from several disciplines, including psychology, sociology and anthropology. A theory becomes formalized when it is carefully tested with the results repeatable in a number of different settings, and generalizable to various communities.1 Both formal and informal (or implicit) theories first begin with an individual’s observation about a person or phenomenon. Informal theories—those conceived by service providers— are not usually “tested,” yet these intuitive beliefs about why people do what they do are very useful and often similar to concepts found in formal theories conceived by academics. Theories can help providers frame interventions and design evaluation. When designing or choosing an intervention, theory can show what factors should be targeted and where to focus interventions. Theories can help define the expected outcome of an intervention for evaluation purposes. Also, basing programs on a tested theory gives it scientific support, especially if the program hasn’t been evaluated.2 HIV prevention providers are frequently required to use theory in the development of prevention interventions. It’s common, though, for providers to pick a theory based on their intervention. Because many providers are not trained or supported in using theory, they can miss the opportunity to use it as a process for thinking critically about a community in the development of programs.

How can theory guide programs?

Answering the questions in the framework below can help in selecting the most appropriate theories and interventions for a particular community:3

  1. Which communities/populations are targeted for services?
  2. What are the specific behaviors that put them at risk for HIV/STDS?
  3. What are the factors that impact risk-taking behaviors?
  4. Which factors are the most important and can be realistically addressed?
  5. What theory(ies) or models best address the identified factors?
  6. What kind of intervention can best address above factors?

Behaviors that place people at risk for STDS/HIV acquisition and transmission are often the result of many complex factors operating at multiple levels. Theories of behavior change usually address one or more these levels and include individual, interpersonal, community, and structural and environmental factors. Many researchers and providers use a combination of factors from several theories to guide their programs. Following are select theories and models and examples of programs that use them.

Structural and policy level

These theories look at societal and environmental influences on health, including laws, policies, customs, economic conditions and social inequalities (e.g. racism, classism, sexism). Social Disorganization Theory states that where social institutions, norms and values are no longer functioning, high rates of violence, drug abuse, poverty and disease occur. Theory of Gender and Power views the differences in labor, power dynamics, and relationship-investment between women and men as structures that can produce inequalities for women and increase women’s risk and vulnerability to HIV.5 Family to Family is a structural intervention that strengthens family functioning and the bonds that connect families to each other in Harlem, NY. Designed to address a broad range of social issues, the program seeks to foster strong relationships in a community with high rates of violence, drug abuse and HIV infection, thus influencing the social determinants of individual risk behavior.6

Community level

Empowerment Education Theory, based on Paulo Freire’s popular education model, engages groups to identify and discuss problems.7 Once the issue is fully understood by community members, solutions are jointly proposed, agreed, and acted upon. This seeks to promote health by increasing people’s feelings of power and control over their lives. Diffusion of Innovation helps understand how new ideas or behaviors are introduced to, and are spread into and then accepted by a community.8 Voices of Women of Color Against HIV/AIDS (VOW) in New York City, is a community organizing intervention based on empowerment theory that aims to increase the involvement of women of color in all aspects of HIV prevention. Women meet monthly to discuss HIV/AIDS issues. VOW organizes trainings on topics of highest concern, and helps women advocate for formulating or changing policies. VOW has met with legislators, given public testimony and organized a women’s policy conference.9

Interpersonal level

Social Cognitive Theory views the adoption of behaviors as a social process influenced by interactions with a person and others in their environment.10 Two primary components of this theory are: 1) modeling of behaviors we see others performing, and 2) self-efficacy, a person’s belief that s/he is capable of performing the new behavior in the proposed situation. Social Support/Social Networks describes the impact of social relationships on health and well-being, where social networks refers to a web of social relationships and social support is the aid and assistance received through those relationships.11 Lista Para Accion is an intervention in Long Beach, CA, that works with Latino gay men and is based on social support and social cognitive theories. The program features four skills-based workshops held in a local Latino dance club. Participants who complete all four workshops can become “Compadres” or community leaders who serve as a support network or “second family” for new workshop participants.12

Individual level

The Health Belief Model proposes that in order for persons to change their behaviors they must first believe they are susceptible to a particular condition, and that the severity of that condition is serious.13 Stages of Changeexplains the process of incremental behavior change, from having no intentions to changing, to maintaining safer behaviors.14 The five stages are: Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action and Maintenance. Theory of Reasoned Action sees intention as the main influence on behavior.15 Intentions are a combination of attitudes toward the behavior as well as perceived opinions of peers, both heavily influenced by social norms. Students Together Against Negative Decisions (STAND) is a peer educator training in a rural Georgia county that is based on stages of change and diffusion of innovations theories. HIV prevention training topics are sequenced to match each of the stages of change. STAND prepares teens to initiate conversations with their peers about sexual risk reduction, then assess a person’s stage of change and suggest specific activities. Peer educators reported a sevenfold larger increase in condom use and a 30% decrease in unprotected intercourse.16

What else is there?

Besides tested and implicit theories, there are strategies that are used as frameworks for programs. Harm Reduction accepts that while harmful behaviors exist, the main goal is to reduce their negative effects.17 Community Organizing/Mobilization approaches encourage communities to advocate for healthier conditions in their lives.18 Providers have tremendous insight into what puts their clients at risk for HIV and why. Funders need to accept both tested and implicit theories as a valid base for programs, which often go beyond HIV prevention to address violence, poverty and drug abuse.

Says who?

1. Goldman KD, Schmalz KJ. Theoretically speaking: overview and summary of key health education theories. Health Promotion Practice. 2001:2;277-281. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evaluating CDC-Funded Health Department HIV Prevention Programs. December 1999.https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/dhap/peb/index.html  3. Freeman A, Vogan S, Rietmeijer K, et al. Bridging theory and practice: a course on apply-ing behavioral theory to STD/HIV prevention. Presented at National HIV Prevention Conference, Atlanta, GA; 1999. Abst #263. 4. Elliott MA, Merrill FE. Social disorganization. New York, NY: Harper; 1961. 5. Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ. Application of the theory of gender and power to examine HIV-related exposures, risk factors and effective interventions for women. Health Education and Behavior. 2000;27:539-565. 6. Fullilove RE, Green L, Fullilove MT. The Family to Family pro-gram: a structural intervention with implications for the prevention of HIV/AIDS and other community epidemics. AIDS. 2000;14S1;S63-S67. 7. Wallerstein N. Powerlessness, empowerment and health: implications for health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion. 1992;6:197-205. 8. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. Third edition. New York, NY: The Free Press:1983. 9. Elcock S, Goodman D. Women of color doing it for ourselves: HIV prevention policies. Presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference, Atlanta , GA. 1999, Abst. #443. 10. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory and exercise of control over HIV infection. In DiClemente RJ (ed) Preventing AIDS: Theories and Methods of Behavioral Interventions. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1994. 11. Glanz K, Marcus Lewis F, Rimer BK, Eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 1997. 12. Buitron M, Corby N, Rhodes F. Creating a culturally appropriate behavioral prevention intervention for Spanish speaking gay men from an existing risk-reduction program. Presented at the International Conference on AIDS, Geneva, Switzerland, 1998. Abst # 335553. 13. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. The health belief model and HIV risk behavior change. In DiClemente RJ (ed) Preventing AIDS: Theories and Methods of Behavioral Interventions. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1994. 14. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of how people change. Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist. 1992;47:1102-1114. 15. Fishbein M, Middlestadt SE. Using the theory of reasoned action as a framework for under-standing and changing AIDS-related behaviors. In Wasserheit JN (ed) Primary Prevention of AIDS: Psychological Approaches. 1989. 16. Smith MU, DiClemente RJ. STAND: A peer educator training curriculum for sexual risk reduction in the rural South. Preventive Medicine. 2000;30:441-449. 17. Brettle RP. HIV and harm reduction for injection drug users. AIDS. 1991;5:125-136. 18. Community organizing and community building for health. M Minkler, ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 1997.

PREPARED BY ALICE GANDELMAN MPH*, BETH FREEDMAN MPH** *California HIV/STD Prevention Training Center,**CAPS January 2002. Fact Sheet #14ER Special thanks to the following reviewers of this Fact Sheet: David Cotton, Pat Coury-Doniger, Ann Freeman, Andy Handler, Julie Lifshay, Matthew Staley, Javid Syed.

Reproduction of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California San Franciso should be cited as the source of this information. For additional copies of this and other HIV Prevention Fact Sheets, please call the National Prevention Information Network at 800/458-5231. Comments and questions about this Fact Sheet may be e-mailed to [email protected]. © February 2002, University of California

Resource

Teoría

¿Qué papel juega la teoria en la prevención del VIH?

¿qué es la teoría y en qué puede ayudar?

Una teoría describe los factores o las relaciones que influencian la conducta o el ambiente, y sirve de guía para modificar estos últimos. Las teorías empleadas en la prevención provienen de varios campos que incluyen la psicología, sociología y antropología. Las teorías se formalizan por medio de un proceso de comprobación cuidadosa. Los resultados de esta comprobación deben ser repetibles en varios ambientes diferentes y generalizables a varias comunidades.1 Tanto las teorías formales como las informales (o implícitas) comienzan con observaciones sobre personas o fenómenos. Por lo general las teorías informales (aquellas ideadas por proveedores de servicios) no se comprueban formalmente. Sin embargo, estas creencias intuitivas sobre por qué las personas hacen lo que hacen son muy útiles y muchas veces son similares a los conceptos de las teorías formales ideadas por académicos. Las teorías pueden ayudar a enmarcar las intervenciones y a diseñar evaluaciones. Al diseñar o escoger una intervención, la teoría puede dar una idea de los factores que se deben tomar en cuenta y en qué aspectos se debe enfocar. Las teorías pueden ayudar a definir el resultado que se espera de la intervención para fines de evaluación. También, basar el programa en una teoría comprobada le da apoyo científico, especialmente si el programa no ha sido evaluado.2 Muchos financiadores de proyectos requieren que los proveedores de servicios de prevención del VIH empleen la teoría para crear intervenciones preventivas. Sin embargo, es común que los proveedores escojan una teoría en función de su intervención. Ya que muchos proveedores no están capacitados ni apoyados para usar la teoría, ellos pueden perder la oportunidad de usarla como un proceso para pensar críticamente sobre una comunidad durante la creación de programas.

¿cómo puede la teoría guiar programas?

Contestar las siguientes preguntas puede ayudar a escoger las teorías e intervenciones más adecuadas para una comunidad en particular:3

  1. ¿Qué comunidades o grupos se beneficiarán con los servicios?
  2. ¿Cuales son las conductas concretas los ponen en riesgo de contraer el VIH/las ETS?
  3. ¿Qué factores tienen algún efecto sobre estas conductas riesgosas?
  4. ¿Cuáles son los factores más importantes que realmente se pueden modificar?
  5. ¿Qué teoría(s) o modelo(s) servirán mejor para los factores identificados?
  6. ¿Qué tipo de intervención servirá mejor para estos factores?

Frecuentemente, las conductas que ponen a las personas en riesgo de contraer y transmitir las ETS/el VIH son el resultado de muchos factores complicados que operan en varios niveles. Las teorías de cambio conductual usualmente abordan uno o más de estos niveles e incluyen factores individuales, interpersonales/grupales, comunitarios, estructurales y ambientales. Muchos investigadores y proveedores usan una combinación de factores de varias teorías para guiar sus programas. A continuación describimos algunas teorías y modelos así como ejemplos de programas que los emplean. Las teorías están organizadas por nivel de implementación, pero muchas se pueden usar en varios niveles diferentes.

nivel estructural y politico

Estas teorías examinan las influencias sociales y ambientales sobre la salud, incluyendo leyes, normas, costumbres, condiciones económicas y desigualdades sociales. La Teoría de Desorganización Social sostiene que cuando las instituciones, normas y valores sociales dejan de funcionar, ocurren altas incidencias de violencia, abuso de drogas, pobreza y enfermedades.4 La Teoría de Ecología Social afirma que los ambientes sociales, culturales y físicos forman la conducta, por lo tanto las intervenciones no deben enfocarse en el individuo sino en estos ambientes.5 La Teoría de Género y Poder considera las diferencias entre hombres y mujeres con respecto al trabajo, la dinámica de poder y la inversión en relaciones como estructuras que pueden generar desigualdades para la mujer y aumentar su riesgo y vulnerabilidad con respecto al VIH.6 “Family to Family” es una intervención estructural que fortalece el funcionamiento de la familia y los lazos entre familiares en Harlem, NY. Diseñado para responder a una amplia gama de situaciones sociales, el programa busca promover relaciones fuertes en una comunidad con altas tasas de violencia, abuso de drogas e infección por VIH. De esta manera el programa busca influenciar los determinantes sociales de la conducta arriesgada de los individuos.7

nivel comunitario

La Teoría de la Educación de Apoderamiento, basada en el modelo de educación popular de Paulo Freire, involucra a grupos para que identifiquen y comenten problemas sociales.8 Una vez que los miembros de la comunidad entiendan el tema completamente, ellos proponen y concuerdan soluciones y las ponen en práctica. Este método buscar promover la salud al incrementar los sentimientos de poder y control que tienen las personas sobre su vida. La Difusión de Innovaciones explica cómo ideas o conductas nuevas son introducidas en la comunidad y cómo la comunidad las difunde hasta llegar a aceptarlas.9 Las Voces de Mujeres de Color Contra el VIH/SIDA (VOW, siglas en inglés) en la ciudad de Nueva York, es una intervención de organización de comunidades basada en la teoría de apoderamiento que busca aumentar la participación de mujeres de color en todos los aspectos de la prevención del VIH. Las mujeres se reúnen cada mes para hablar sobre el VIH/SIDA. VOW organiza capacitaciones y ayuda a las mujeres a promover la creación o modificación de políticas y normas. VOW se ha reunido con legisladores, ha dado testimonio público y ha organizado un congreso para mujeres sobre la política pública.10

nivel interpersonal/grupal

Según la Teoría Social Cognitiva, la adopción de conductas es un proceso social influenciado por las interacciones entre el individuo y otras persona en su entorno.11 Dos componentes principales de esta teoría son: 1) la imitación de conductas que vemos en otras personas: y 2) la autoeficacia: la creencia de que uno es capaz de realizar la nueva conducta en la situación propuesta. La Teoría de Redes Sociales/Apoyo Social describe el efecto de las relaciones sociales sobre la salud y el bienestar. Redes Sociales se refiere a una red de relaciones sociales y el Apoyo Social es la ayuda que se obtiene por medio de estas relaciones.5 Listo Para Acción es una intervención en Long Beach, CA entre hombres homosexuales latinos que está basada en las teorías de apoyo social y cognitiva social. El programa ofrece en una discoteca latina cuatro talleres para desarrollar habilidades. Los participantes que completen los cuatro talleres pueden convertirse en “compadres” o líderes que luego sirven como una red de apoyo o segunda familia para los nuevos participantes de los talleres.12

nivel individual

El Modelo de Creencias sobre la Salud propone que antes de poder cambiar su conducta, las personas deben creer primero que son vulnerables a cierta condición y percibirla como una condición grave.13 Los Estadíos de Cambioexplica el proceso de cambios incrementales, desde no tener ninguna intención de cambiar, hasta lograr mantener conductas más seguras.14 Los cinco estadíos son: Precontemplación, Contemplación, Preparación, Acción y Mantenimiento. La Teoría de Acción Razonada ve la intención como la influencia primordial sobre la conducta.15 Las intenciones son una combinación de actitudes hacia la conducta y percepciones de las opiniones de los pares. Las normas sociales tienen una influencia muy fuerte sobre ambas. Estudiantes Unidos Contra las Decisiones Negativas (STAND, siglas en inglés) es un programa de capacitación de pares en un condado de Georgia. STAND se basa en las teorías de estadíos de cambio y difusión de innovaciones. Presentando temas de capacitación en prevención del VIH en secuencia de acuerdo con cada estadío de cambio, STAND prepara a los jóvenes para que inicien conversaciones con sus pares sobre cómo reducir el riesgo durante el sexo, y después evalúen su estadío de cambio y les sugieran actividades concretas. Los participantes reportaron un aumento en su uso de condones y una reducción de la penetración sexual sin protección.16

¿qué más hay?

Aparte de las teorías comprobadas y las implícitas, existen estrategias que se usan como marcos para los programas. La Reducción de Daños acepta que mientras existan los comportamientos dañinos, el objetivo principal es reducir sus efectos negativos.17 La Organización/Movilización de Comunidades anima a las comunidades a defender sus derechos de vivir en condiciones más saludables.18 Los proveedores tienen mucha información sobre los peligros que sus clientes corren con respecto al VIH y las razones de estos riesgos. Por lo tanto, ellos deben asegurarse de que sus programas se basen en sus propias teorías o en otras teorías comprobadas, y quienes financian los programas deben aceptar ambos tipos de teoría como una base válida para los programas.

¿quién lo dice?

1. Goldman KD, Schmalz KJ. Theoretically speaking: overview and summary of key health education theories. Health Promotion Practice. 2001:2;277-281. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evaluating CDC-Funded Health Department HIV Prevention Programs. December 1999.https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/dhap/peb/index.html 3. Freeman A, Vogan S, Rietmeijer K, et al. Bridging theory and practice: a course on apply-ing behavioral theory to STD/HIV prevention. Presented at National HIV Prevention Conference, Atlanta, GA; 1999. Abst #263. 4. Elliott MA, Merrill FE. Social disorganization. New York, NY: Harper; 1961. 5. Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ. Application of the theory of gender and power to examine HIV-related exposures, risk factors and effective interventions for women. Health Education and Behavior. 2000;27:539-565. 6. Fullilove RE, Green L, Fullilove MT. The Family to Family pro-gram: a structural intervention with implications for the prevention of HIV/AIDS and other community epidemics. AIDS. 2000;14S1;S63-S67. 7. Wallerstein N. Powerlessness, empowerment and health: implications for health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion. 1992;6:197-205. 8. Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. Third edition. New York, NY: The Free Press:1983. 9. Elcock S, Goodman D. Women of color doing it for ourselves: HIV prevention policies. Presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference, Atlanta , GA. 1999, Abst. #443. 10. Bandura A. Social cognitive theory and exercise of control over HIV infection. In DiClemente RJ (ed) Preventing AIDS: Theories and Methods of Behavioral Interventions. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1994. 11. Glanz K, Marcus Lewis F, Rimer BK, Eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 1997. 12. Buitron M, Corby N, Rhodes F. Creating a culturally appropriate behavioral prevention intervention for Spanish speaking gay men from an existing risk-reduction program. Presented at the International Conference on AIDS, Geneva, Switzerland, 1998. Abst # 335553. 13. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. The health belief model and HIV risk behavior change. In DiClemente RJ (ed) Preventing AIDS: Theories and Methods of Behavioral Interventions. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1994. 14. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of how people change. Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist. 1992;47:1102-1114. 15. Fishbein M, Middlestadt SE. Using the theory of reasoned action as a framework for under-standing and changing AIDS-related behaviors. In Wasserheit JN (ed) Primary Prevention of AIDS: Psychological Approaches. 1989. 16. Smith MU, DiClemente RJ. STAND: A peer educator training curriculum for sexual risk reduction in the rural South. Preventive Medicine. 2000;30:441-449. 17. Brettle RP. HIV and harm reduction for injection drug users. AIDS. 1991;5:125-136. 18. Community organizing and community building for health. M Minkler, ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 1997.

Preparado por Alice Gandelman MPH* y Beth Freedman MPH** *California HIV/STDS Prevention Training Center,**CAPS Tradución Rocky Schnaath Abril 2002. Hoja Informativa 14SR

Resource

Using science

How Is Science Used in HIV Prevention?

Is science needed?

Yes. While prevention science will not give “the answer,” science fills in critical pieces of the prevention puzzle. Science used in conjunction with an agency’s experience with clients can strengthen, inspire, target, and best use limited resources in HIV prevention programs. This fact sheet will cover some of the basic elements of prevention science, what they mean, and their implications for service. Using science in prevention is now mandated in many areas. In 1994, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) radically changed how it makes prevention program awards. The CDC’s guidance recommends that HIV Prevention Community Planning Groups (CPGs) use epidemiology, evaluation and behavioral science theories, findings, and methodologies in developing programs.1 Science that is applicable to HIV prevention can be broken down into five general categories:

  • epidemiology,
  • basic behavioral science,
  • behavior change theory,
  • intervention science, and
  • evaluation methodology.

How is epidemiology useful?

Epidemiology is the study of the occurrence of infections or disease in a population. It can tell you how many people are newly infected with HIV, what subpopulations have been infected, and who might be expected to be infected by HIV in the future. Behavioral epidemiology can tell you about the frequency of risk behaviors.2 Using local epidemiology can help program planners target specific audiences and behavior risks that are most in need of prevention in their community. It can also help planners be more thoughtful about how to best use limited resources. Health departments and the CDC can help by collecting local data for all populations.3

How is behavioral science useful?

Basic behavioral science explores the social, behavioral and cultural influences that help explain why people put themselves at risk, and why people continue to get infected with HIV. Research on human sexuality is key to understanding how people change risky sexual behaviors and can help in program design.4 It does not tell service providers what to do, but can suggest new ways of thinking about program elements. For example, recent research has shown that childhood sexual abuse is a predictor for risky sexual behavior in adulthood.5 Knowing this, program managers can incorporate questions on early abuse into needs assessments, add a segment on childhood abuse to multi-session education interventions, develop new programs for adults who were abused and/or give special training to direct service staff on sexual abuse issues.

How is behavior change theory useful?

Behavior change theory provides a framework to ideas on why and how people change behaviors that put them at risk for HIV infection. Using behavior change theories can help when crafting an intervention, to support each component in a model as the intervention is designed.6,7 For example, Paulo Freire’s theory of Popular Education states that teachers and students should learn from one another.8 Using this theory, a program can use discussion groups as opposed to lectures. This format can strengthen the intervention by empowering people to personally develop their own solutions to change their environment.

How is intervention science useful?

Intervention science explores which components of programs are more effective and which programs work well in certain populations. For example, in a recent study, the riskiest people did not attend small group educational sessions. A program for gay/ bisexual men in Portland, OR conducted outreach in bars and at community events, home meetings, and safer sex workshops. While most men attended outreach activities, few men were likely to attend safer sex workshops.9 Scientific study of the program showed that outreach was most likely to reach the riskiest men-younger men and men who reported unprotected anal intercourse. Interventions aimed at high risk-taking populations can rely on intensive individual outreach/counseling and/or innovative, minimally structured community-level social activities to help draw their intended audience.

How is evaluation methodology useful?

Evaluation encourages critical thinking about the process of designing interventions, and should not only occur at the end of an intervention. Good evaluation produces information about needs, service use patterns, impacts and outcomes. It also gives a voice to clients’ experiences, and allows service providers to learn about their programs so that they can make necessary changes to increase their effectiveness.10 An agency can hire a consultant or researcher for evaluation, or can conduct its own evaluation. For example, Tri-City Health Center in Fremont, CA surveyed suburban street youth to evaluate the effectiveness of their program of outreach and educational workshops. In response to youth feedback, Tri-City cancelled their scheduled workshops and added a drop-in center providing HIV education as well as support in areas such as dropping out of school, joblessness, substance abuse, abusive relationships and living with HIV.11

How do people access science?

No one should need an advanced degree to understand prevention science. Several organizations exist to help translate and summarize research into understandable and usable forms. CPGs are directed to incorporate prevention science in their comprehensive plans, which are available through local and state health departments.12 Local universities (especially schools of public health and social work, departments of sociology, psychiatry/psychology, or anthropology) are an excellent contact for research assistance.13 Mailing lists and newsletters from organizations that specialize in prevention science and technical assistance can also be invaluable resources.14

What still needs to be done?

To more closely link the efforts of researchers and service providers: 1) Researchers should share findings with local CBOs and with the CDC and DPHs, as well as become active members of CPGs. 2) CBOs should be more aggressive and proactive in using information outside of their agencies. 3) State DPHs and the CDC should recognize and act upon their role as translators of science. 4) National Institutes of Health, the CDC and private funders should provide adequate funding for integrating prevention science into prevention programs. 5) CBOs and researchers should forge long term partnerships to conduct collaborative projects.15 Using science in service provision is a specialized field. Most scientists are not trained in the real world application of research. Likewise, most service providers are not trained in research methods. A comprehensive HIV prevention strategy uses many elements to protect as many people at risk for HIV as possible. By closing the gap between HIV prevention science and prevention practice, we can ensure that our best efforts won’t be wasted, and we can make a difference in the fight against HIV.

Says who?

  1. Valdiserri RO, Aultman TV, Curran JW. Community planning: a national strategy to improve HIV prevention programs. Journal of Community Health. 1995;20:87-100.
  2. Rothman KJ. Modern Epidemiology. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company; 1986.
  3. A database of epidemiological data for states and some cities is available on the Internet at: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/statistics.html
  4. Kelly JA, Kalichman SC. Increased attention to human sexuality can improve HIV-AIDS prevention efforts: key research issues and directions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1995;63:907-918.
  5. Jinich S, Stall R, Acree M, et al. Childhood sexual abuse predicts HIV risk sexual behavior in adult gay and bisexual men. Presented at the 11th International Conference on AIDS, Vancouver, BC. 1996. Abstract Mo.D.1718.
  6. Valdiserri RO, West GR, Moore M, et al. Structuring HIV prevention service delivery systems on the basis of social science theory. Journal of Community Health. 1992;17:259-269.
  7. Herlocher T, Hoff C, DeCarlo P. Can theory help in HIV prevention? Fact sheet prepared by the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, UCSF. August 1995.
  8. Wallerstein N. Powerlessness, empowerment, and health: implications for health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion. 1992;6:197-205.
  9. Hoff CC, Kegeles S., Acree M, et al. Gay men at highest risk are best reached through outreach in bars and community events. Presented at the 11th International Conference on AIDS, Vancouver, BC. 1996. Abstract Tu.D.360.
  10. San Francisco HIV Prevention Plan. Report prepared by the San Francisco HIV Prevention Planning Council and the Department of Public Health AIDS Office. 1996.
  11. Carver LJ, Harper GW. Responding to the HIV prevention needs of suburban street youth. Presented at the 11th International Conference on AIDS, Vancouver, BC. 1996. Abstract Th.D.4921.
  12. For information on your local or state Community Planning group, please contact Lynne Greabell at NASTAD (202) 434-8090.
  13. A directory of universities is available here: https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities
  14. CDC (800) 458-5231 (www.cdc.gov/nchstp/hiv_aids/dhap.htm)
    • American Psychological Association (202) 336-6042
    • National Minority AIDS Council (202) 483-6622
    • National Association of People With AIDS (202) 898-0414
    • Academy for Educational Development (202) 884-8700
    • National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (202) 434-8090
    • Council of State & Territorial Epidemiologist (770) 458-3811
    • The US Conference of Mayors (202) 293-7330
    • GMHC Education Department (212) 807-7517 (www.gmhc.org)
    • The Center for AIDS Prevention Studies - https://prevention.ucsf.edu/ 
    • Rural Prevention Center (812) 855-1718 https://rcap.indiana.edu/ 
  15. Goldstein E, Wrubel J, Faigeles B, et al. Is research important for non-governmental organizations in the United States? Presented at the 11th International Conference on AIDS, Vancouver, BC. 1996. Abstract Th.C.4779.

Prepared by Ellen Goldstein and Pamela DeCarlo January 1997. Fact Sheet #25E

Reproduction of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California San Franciso should be cited as the source of this information. For additional copies of this and other HIV Prevention Fact Sheets, please call the National AIDS Clearinghouse at 800/458-5231. Comments and questions about this Fact Sheet may be e-mailed to [email protected]. © January 1997, University of California