Welcome to The AIDS Pandemic, a podcast hosted by Dr. David Wessner from the Department of Biology at Davidson College. I'm Ali Cundari.
Beyond the obvious physical symptoms associated with AIDS, there are many psychological and social implications surrounding this debilitating disease that we don’t often consider. Mass media efforts and expensive awareness campaigns have done a good job at spreading information to the general public, however, these programs have not been highly successful in reducing risky sexual behavior. Talking about sexuality and proper protection is a topic very uncomfortable to many people, even in today’s world, and this is the reason why many people fail to practice safe sex despite the vast knowledge about how this disease is transmitted. Additionally, a perplexing phenomenon exists among individuals outwardly preaching safe sex, but in reality, not using protection in their own sex lives. This type of insensible behavior is particularly prevalent among sexually active college students, who are aware of the risks and severity of AIDS, but proportionately, very few of them actually use condoms. Recently, several social psychologists have examined this hypocrisy by researching the effects of cognitive dissonance theory on safer sex practices.
Cognitive dissonance theory has been an integral component of social psychology for nearly 50 years, and according to this theory, dissonance arises when a person possesses two contradictory beliefs, or when a person’s attitude conflicts with an action that they chose to perform. This clash between attitude and behavior results in feelings of discomfort, and subsequently the conflicted individual strives to change either their beliefs or behavior to reduce this tension. Hypocrisy is considered a special type of cognitive dissonance, produced when a person decides to promote a behavior that in actuality, they do not practice. Several experiments have been conducted in an attempt to apply this theory to AIDS prevention.
Elliot Aronson was the major contributor to this field of research, and his original study (1991) placed young college students in the role of a HIV prevention educator, who is asked to advocate condom-use to others, but hypocritically does not use condoms in their own sex life. Half the students were asked to compile a list of their past failures to use condoms, when they had deemed it to be too awkward or impossible to do so. Each subject was then asked to compose a speech about the dangers of AIDS and the importance of using condoms for every sexual encounter. The students were quite willing to take on this role, believing it was a good idea to encourage sexually active people to use protection. Then, some of the students recited their speech in front of a video camera, after being informed that this tape would be played in a high-school sex-education class. This produced a high level of dissonance in the subjects. They were now preaching condom-use to others, but hypocritically had failed to practice this at earlier points in their lives. In order to remove this dissonance, the subjects would have to change their attitude to bring it in line with the position they were advocating. Essentially, they’d have to start practicing what they preached. Sure enough, Aronson’s results supported this hypothesis, and after the conclusion of the experiment, the students were far more likely to purchase condoms, which were available on a display table outside the experimental room. Several months later, Aronson followed up with these same students, and they reported that they were regularly using condoms and practicing safer sex.
Many further studies have been conducted, all producing results quite similar to Aronson’s findings. The results of these experiments could have a profound impact on the future of AIDS education and risk reduction efforts, forcing people out of a state of denial and into safer sex practices. Although almost everybody today would agree that AIDS is a huge danger and using condoms is important, the reality is very few of these people actually use condoms themselves. Aronson suggests that the solution to this problem is relatively simple. Society attempts to insulate themselves from a state of dissonance through denial, so in order to cut through this denial, we must directly confront people with their own hypocrisy. Whether it’s through personal and direct surveys or questionnaires, we need to make people realize their past failures and strive to regularly practice safer sex. People need to realize that AIDS is not just a problem for other people, but they themselves are at risk as well. Overall, cognitive dissonance seems to have a strong impact on human behavior, and we can hope to use such theories to encourage safer sex and address the growing social problem that is AIDS.
Thanks for listening. Until next time, this is Ali Cundari.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Friday, November 09, 2007
Testing and Treatment of HIV/AIDS in Children
According to a 2006 UNAIDS/WHO AIDS Epidemic Update, there are approximately 39.5 million people living with HIV/AIDS throughout the world. Of those infected, 2.3 million are aged 15 or younger. Approximately 90% of children infected with HIV acquire the virus perinatally, meaning it is transmitted from a mother to her child during pregnancy, labor, delivery or through breastfeeding. According to the CDC, the prevalence of mother-to-child transmission of AIDS in the US has dropped significantly due to effective testing of pregnant women and treatment of those found to be infected; in resource poor settings, however, the testing and treatment of infected women is far less common. In 2005, the UNAIDS/WHO AIDS Epidemic Update found that only 9% of pregnant women in resource poor countries were offered any sort of prevention services, leading to a higher prevalence of pediatric HIV/AIDS infection in less developed countries. As the prevalence of women of childbearing age who are infected with HIV increases in resource poor settings, it can be expected that the number of babies infected from mother-to-child transmission will likewise increase.
Children infected with HIV/AIDS are confronted with an extremely high rate of illness and death. The World Health Organization has found that because of their unique metabolic and immunologic circumstances, HIV progresses rapidly in children, with an estimated one third of infants dying by the time they reach their first birthday and half dying by their second birthday. Although in most developed countries identification and treatment of HIV infected babies is quite successful, which allows those children to lead healthier and longer lives, the situation is quite different in resource poor countries where testing, much less treatment of infants and children is relatively unavailable. To begin with, testing may be unavailable to individuals in developing countries due to the distance, expense and impracticality of reaching those hospitals and clinics that provide testing. Even when testing is locally available, parents may be unwilling to test their babies for fear of stigma and prejudice associated with an HIV positive status. Furthermore, testing of infants in developing countries can require far more time than in developed countries. PCR tests are among the fastest and most effective ways to diagnose infants as they can be done within 48 hours of birth and results are available to the mother within 6 weeks of the completion of the test. PCR tests are rarely accessible and prohibitively expensive in resource poor settings where antibody tests are the norm. These antibody tests only begin to give accurate results 18 months after birth, and so babies in developing countries are oftentimes diagnosed far later than in developed countries, if they are diagnosed at all.
Aside from the difficulties in testing infants and children for HIV in resource poor settings, there continues to be a dearth of treatment for children found to be positive for the virus. Although both prophylaxis and HAART or highly active antiretroviral therapy can be extremely effective in treating HIV/AIDS and preventing opportunistic infections in children, the unique difficulties associated with treating children in resource poor settings mean that these therapies are widely underused. UNAIDS found in 2006 that “an estimated 380,000 children died of AIDS-related causes” and that, “the vast majority of these deaths could have been prevented either by treating opportunistic infections or providing HAART.” Similarly, a UNAIDS/WHO report found that nearly 90% of children who could benefit from ARV treatments are not currently receiving it. This lack of treatment can be attributed to several factors.
In many resource poor settings, antiretroviral treatment may simply be unavailable. Those countries where the HIV/AIDS burden is greatest such as in Sub-Saharan Africa are oftentimes the least able to provide treatment, and so a lack of resources oftentimes translates into a lack of prophylaxis and/or antiretrovirals. Prophylaxis has been found to be extremely effective in staving off opportunistic infections in HIV positive children and is useful in delaying the need for HAART in pediatric populations. Although prophylactic drugs are widely available and relatively cheap, a UNAIDS/WHO study has found that currently nearly 4 million children who could benefit from such treatment are not receiving it. This is probably the result of lack of available treatment sites and infrastructure in resource poor settings. This dearth of available treatment translates to ARVs as well as prophylactic treatments. Even in areas where adult ARV treatment is present, there is rarely a comparable pediatric treatment site. This is due to the fact that suitable pediatric drug formulations are oftentimes prohibitively expensive and impractical. Little research had been conducted in the area of pediatric dosages because in the developed world effective mother to child prevention had limited the need for pediatric ARVs. Because so few drugs are available in pediatric dosages, and those that are available tend to be far more expensive than those made for adults, most caregivers in resource poor settings are limited to providing either expensive and unpleasant tasting syrup formulas or cutting and crushing adult tablets to provide ARVs for their pediatric patients. Crushing the pills provides an inexact measure of the amount of medication that is administered. Since under dosage can result in resistance of the virus to the drugs, and over dosage can result in amplified side-effects, the lack of correct dosages inherent in using adult drugs for pediatric patients means this mode of drug administration is far from ideal.
Important steps have been taken to begin to provide better treatment for pediatric AIDS patients. In August of 2007 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a special tablet for children with HIV that combines three antiretroviral drugs into one pill. The tablet can be dissolved in water for ease of administration which is required only twice a day. The drug is produced by the manufacturer Cipla Limited, a generic pharmaceutical company based in India. Though unapproved for use in the US, the drug has been authorized for use in developing countries where the need and demand is greatest. Despite the enormous implications for successful treatment of pediatric AIDS that this drug will bring, there are still substantial obstacles to be overcome before pediatric care and treatment of AIDS is fully complete. Mother-to-child transmission must be diminished in resource poor settings. In situations where prevention of mother-to-child transmission is not achieved, suitable infrastructure for administration of prophylactic and antiretroviral drugs to pediatric patients must be established. Movements and groups such as the “Stop AIDS in Children” campaign are working towards prevention of mother-to-child transmission and improvement of treatment for infected children. With support of both developed and resource poor countries, the relatively ignored problem of HIV/AIDS in children can be successfully addressed.
Until next time, this is Dominique Maietta for the AIDS Pandemic Podcast.
Children infected with HIV/AIDS are confronted with an extremely high rate of illness and death. The World Health Organization has found that because of their unique metabolic and immunologic circumstances, HIV progresses rapidly in children, with an estimated one third of infants dying by the time they reach their first birthday and half dying by their second birthday. Although in most developed countries identification and treatment of HIV infected babies is quite successful, which allows those children to lead healthier and longer lives, the situation is quite different in resource poor countries where testing, much less treatment of infants and children is relatively unavailable. To begin with, testing may be unavailable to individuals in developing countries due to the distance, expense and impracticality of reaching those hospitals and clinics that provide testing. Even when testing is locally available, parents may be unwilling to test their babies for fear of stigma and prejudice associated with an HIV positive status. Furthermore, testing of infants in developing countries can require far more time than in developed countries. PCR tests are among the fastest and most effective ways to diagnose infants as they can be done within 48 hours of birth and results are available to the mother within 6 weeks of the completion of the test. PCR tests are rarely accessible and prohibitively expensive in resource poor settings where antibody tests are the norm. These antibody tests only begin to give accurate results 18 months after birth, and so babies in developing countries are oftentimes diagnosed far later than in developed countries, if they are diagnosed at all.
Aside from the difficulties in testing infants and children for HIV in resource poor settings, there continues to be a dearth of treatment for children found to be positive for the virus. Although both prophylaxis and HAART or highly active antiretroviral therapy can be extremely effective in treating HIV/AIDS and preventing opportunistic infections in children, the unique difficulties associated with treating children in resource poor settings mean that these therapies are widely underused. UNAIDS found in 2006 that “an estimated 380,000 children died of AIDS-related causes” and that, “the vast majority of these deaths could have been prevented either by treating opportunistic infections or providing HAART.” Similarly, a UNAIDS/WHO report found that nearly 90% of children who could benefit from ARV treatments are not currently receiving it. This lack of treatment can be attributed to several factors.
In many resource poor settings, antiretroviral treatment may simply be unavailable. Those countries where the HIV/AIDS burden is greatest such as in Sub-Saharan Africa are oftentimes the least able to provide treatment, and so a lack of resources oftentimes translates into a lack of prophylaxis and/or antiretrovirals. Prophylaxis has been found to be extremely effective in staving off opportunistic infections in HIV positive children and is useful in delaying the need for HAART in pediatric populations. Although prophylactic drugs are widely available and relatively cheap, a UNAIDS/WHO study has found that currently nearly 4 million children who could benefit from such treatment are not receiving it. This is probably the result of lack of available treatment sites and infrastructure in resource poor settings. This dearth of available treatment translates to ARVs as well as prophylactic treatments. Even in areas where adult ARV treatment is present, there is rarely a comparable pediatric treatment site. This is due to the fact that suitable pediatric drug formulations are oftentimes prohibitively expensive and impractical. Little research had been conducted in the area of pediatric dosages because in the developed world effective mother to child prevention had limited the need for pediatric ARVs. Because so few drugs are available in pediatric dosages, and those that are available tend to be far more expensive than those made for adults, most caregivers in resource poor settings are limited to providing either expensive and unpleasant tasting syrup formulas or cutting and crushing adult tablets to provide ARVs for their pediatric patients. Crushing the pills provides an inexact measure of the amount of medication that is administered. Since under dosage can result in resistance of the virus to the drugs, and over dosage can result in amplified side-effects, the lack of correct dosages inherent in using adult drugs for pediatric patients means this mode of drug administration is far from ideal.
Important steps have been taken to begin to provide better treatment for pediatric AIDS patients. In August of 2007 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a special tablet for children with HIV that combines three antiretroviral drugs into one pill. The tablet can be dissolved in water for ease of administration which is required only twice a day. The drug is produced by the manufacturer Cipla Limited, a generic pharmaceutical company based in India. Though unapproved for use in the US, the drug has been authorized for use in developing countries where the need and demand is greatest. Despite the enormous implications for successful treatment of pediatric AIDS that this drug will bring, there are still substantial obstacles to be overcome before pediatric care and treatment of AIDS is fully complete. Mother-to-child transmission must be diminished in resource poor settings. In situations where prevention of mother-to-child transmission is not achieved, suitable infrastructure for administration of prophylactic and antiretroviral drugs to pediatric patients must be established. Movements and groups such as the “Stop AIDS in Children” campaign are working towards prevention of mother-to-child transmission and improvement of treatment for infected children. With support of both developed and resource poor countries, the relatively ignored problem of HIV/AIDS in children can be successfully addressed.
Until next time, this is Dominique Maietta for the AIDS Pandemic Podcast.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
PRODUCT(RED): Philanthropy or Exploitation?
Product(RED)
An earlier installment of this podcast from a year ago called attention to the launch of PRODUCT(RED) in the United States. Since the brand’s introduction, (RED) watches, sunglasses, t-shirts, cell phones, and iPods have been extensively marketed and sold, with some of the revenues going to support the fight against AIDS in Africa. Nevertheless, the (RED) brand has been a target of criticism for its commercial approach to a philanthropic endeavor. In this installment, I intend to take a close look at PRODUCT(RED) and its impact on the AIDS pandemic.
(RED)’s business model embodies the strategy of cause marketing, where for-profit companies and non-profit organizations collaborate in a joint initiative for their mutual benefit. (RED) currently has partnerships with several distinctive consumer goods companies, including Motorola, The Gap, Converse, Apple, and Emporio Armani. PRODUCT(RED) gives its partners permission to brand certain products as (RED), and in return the partners send a share of their profits from those products to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Hip, humanitarian, and business-savvy, PRODUCT(RED) panders simultaneously to Americans’ munificence and to their conspicuous consumption.
According to the PRODUCT(RED) website, as of September 2007 the sale of (RED) products has generated more than $45 million for the Global Fund. This money has been directed toward AIDS treatment and prevention programs for women and children in Ghana, Swaziland, and Rwanda. (RED) points out that its contribution to the Global Fund will be a steady, constant stream of revenue rather than a one-time lump sum donation, ensuring that the brand will have a sustained impact on its beneficiaries.
Most criticism against the brand has centered on the belief that its partners are taking advantage of the AIDS problem in order to turn a profit. Early detractors of the brand encouraged consumers to donate their money directly to charity and thereby bypass the middle-men (RED) partners siphoning off most of the revenues. Later, a particularly scathing article in the magazine Advertising Age cited the disproportionately large amount of money spent by the brand’s partners promoting their (RED) products compared to the amount the partners actually raised for the Global Fund from the product sales. More recently, Ben Davis, creator of a parody campaign called BUY(LESS), has written an open letter to (RED) CEO Bobby Shriver requesting both more transparency in the distribution of profits from (RED) products and a more direct way for consumers to contribute directly to the Global Fund without having to buy (RED)-branded products.
In the end, it is important to consider what PRODUCT(RED) really is. It is not a charity, but “an economic initiative”, according to its website. Accordingly, its partners’ financial interest in the (RED) brand gives them an incentive to ensure its continued success. So what if the amount of money spent by the partners promoting their (RED) products exceeds the amount they turn over to the Global Fund? The money is already designated for their advertising budgets and would be spent anyway. This way, it at least goes toward publicizing a good cause. And besides, strictly fiscal measurements of PRODUCT(RED)’s impact (in terms of dollars alone) understate the heightened general awareness that the brand engenders among consumers.
Debating whether (RED) is more philanthropic or exploitative in nature misses the point. Even its most ardent critics would agree that the brand is making a positive contribution to the fight against AIDS. The question is, could PRODUCT(RED) do more to achieve its stated goal to “expand opportunities for the people of Africa”? I think it could.
Thanks for listening. I’m Bill Stokes.
References:
Bennett, J. Does Shopping for a Good Cause Really Help?. Newsweek. 14 March 2007.
Davis, B. Buy (Less), Give More. accessed 09 October 2007.
Kim, R. Africa’s Poor Had the Best Week Ever. The Nation. 15 October 2006.
The Persuaders, LLC. 2006. (RED). accessed 09 October 2007.
Vallely, P. The Big Question: Does the RED campaign help big Western brands more than Africa?. The Independent. 09 March 2007.
An earlier installment of this podcast from a year ago called attention to the launch of PRODUCT(RED) in the United States. Since the brand’s introduction, (RED) watches, sunglasses, t-shirts, cell phones, and iPods have been extensively marketed and sold, with some of the revenues going to support the fight against AIDS in Africa. Nevertheless, the (RED) brand has been a target of criticism for its commercial approach to a philanthropic endeavor. In this installment, I intend to take a close look at PRODUCT(RED) and its impact on the AIDS pandemic.
(RED)’s business model embodies the strategy of cause marketing, where for-profit companies and non-profit organizations collaborate in a joint initiative for their mutual benefit. (RED) currently has partnerships with several distinctive consumer goods companies, including Motorola, The Gap, Converse, Apple, and Emporio Armani. PRODUCT(RED) gives its partners permission to brand certain products as (RED), and in return the partners send a share of their profits from those products to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Hip, humanitarian, and business-savvy, PRODUCT(RED) panders simultaneously to Americans’ munificence and to their conspicuous consumption.
According to the PRODUCT(RED) website, as of September 2007 the sale of (RED) products has generated more than $45 million for the Global Fund. This money has been directed toward AIDS treatment and prevention programs for women and children in Ghana, Swaziland, and Rwanda. (RED) points out that its contribution to the Global Fund will be a steady, constant stream of revenue rather than a one-time lump sum donation, ensuring that the brand will have a sustained impact on its beneficiaries.
Most criticism against the brand has centered on the belief that its partners are taking advantage of the AIDS problem in order to turn a profit. Early detractors of the brand encouraged consumers to donate their money directly to charity and thereby bypass the middle-men (RED) partners siphoning off most of the revenues. Later, a particularly scathing article in the magazine Advertising Age cited the disproportionately large amount of money spent by the brand’s partners promoting their (RED) products compared to the amount the partners actually raised for the Global Fund from the product sales. More recently, Ben Davis, creator of a parody campaign called BUY(LESS), has written an open letter to (RED) CEO Bobby Shriver requesting both more transparency in the distribution of profits from (RED) products and a more direct way for consumers to contribute directly to the Global Fund without having to buy (RED)-branded products.
In the end, it is important to consider what PRODUCT(RED) really is. It is not a charity, but “an economic initiative”, according to its website. Accordingly, its partners’ financial interest in the (RED) brand gives them an incentive to ensure its continued success. So what if the amount of money spent by the partners promoting their (RED) products exceeds the amount they turn over to the Global Fund? The money is already designated for their advertising budgets and would be spent anyway. This way, it at least goes toward publicizing a good cause. And besides, strictly fiscal measurements of PRODUCT(RED)’s impact (in terms of dollars alone) understate the heightened general awareness that the brand engenders among consumers.
Debating whether (RED) is more philanthropic or exploitative in nature misses the point. Even its most ardent critics would agree that the brand is making a positive contribution to the fight against AIDS. The question is, could PRODUCT(RED) do more to achieve its stated goal to “expand opportunities for the people of Africa”? I think it could.
Thanks for listening. I’m Bill Stokes.
References:
Bennett, J. Does Shopping for a Good Cause Really Help?. Newsweek. 14 March 2007.
Davis, B. Buy (Less), Give More.
Kim, R. Africa’s Poor Had the Best Week Ever. The Nation. 15 October 2006.
The Persuaders, LLC. 2006. (RED).
Vallely, P. The Big Question: Does the RED campaign help big Western brands more than Africa?. The Independent. 09 March 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
