Unformatted text preview: t 99 percent confidence level.
** Significantly different from zero at 95 percent confidence level.
* Significantly different from zero at 90 percent confidence level. R2
Average attendance 0.21
0.69 these districts. Without more detailed time use data, however, the effects of the agricultural season cannot be distinguished from effects of characteristics that vary systematically by district.
Theoretically, those who are most uncertain of their HIV status would expect to gain the most
from learning their results since those most certain of their status would expect to receive no new 1844 THE AMERIcAN EcONOMIc REVIEW DEcEMBER 2008 information. However, those who reported having had a previous test for HIV were no less likely
to attend a VCT center than their untested counterparts—although among those who had been
tested, only 54 percent reported knowing their HIV results. The likelihood of attendance was
not significantly affected by having learned HIV test results prior to the 2004 MDICP survey
The likelihood of seeking HIV results at a center was also not affected by respondents’ belief
in the near-term availability of treatment for HIV, nor a belief of their own infection probability.
Respondents were asked: “Do you think treatment for HIV (ARVs) will become available to
most people in your area in the next five years?” In all, 34 percent reported believing treatment
would be available for HIV-positive persons (Table 2, panel B) but rate of attendance did not
vary among those who believed treatment would be available and those who did not (Table 5,
column 1). Individuals were also asked: “What is the chance that you are infected with HIV?”
Possible answers were “no likelihood,” “some likelihood,” “high likelihood,” and “don’t know.”
There were no significant differences in attendance between individuals having varying subjective probabilities of infection (not shown). One re...
View Full Document