You are on page 1of 1

MPH 1/2009-010 (International)

IMPACT OF HIV/AIDS ON HOUSEHOLDS IN KOLKATA CITY INDIA

NIRMALYA MUKHERJEE

PRECEPTOR: ASST. PROF. SUKHONTHA KONGSIN, Ph.D.


CO-PRECEPTOR: ASST. PROF. SUKHUM JIAMTON, M.D. Ph.D.

Background: The study aimed to document the impact of HIV/AIDS on the household
economy, household income, household expenditures, household savings, household assets,
women’s economic activity, children’s education, and household borrowings and to explore the
different household coping mechanisms and social support system in dealing with household
impact of HIV/AIDS.
Methods: This is a comparative cross-sectional study conducted in Kolkata city, India
among 150 households in comparison with 150 non Chronic Illness (non CI) –affected and 150
Chronic Illness (CI)-affected households. The household respondents were interviewed by
trained-interviewers using questionnaires set. Descriptive statistics were used to explain
demographic and socio-economic profile of the households and estimation of the socio-economic
impact. Cross-tabulations, independent samples t-test, One way ANOVA were used to identify
factors pertaining to impact and the coping mechanisms of households.
Results: The 3 samples were relatively comparable regarding type of locality, religion,
occupational, marital and educational status. In terms of number of households having assets,
HIV affected households were at disadvantage. The average income of HIV affected households
was lower than other two samples. The average savings for HIV affected households was very
less in comparison with of those two groups. One-fifth of HIV affected households were
negative savers. The households with HIV positive belonged to 1-47 months could save 7 times
higher than the households with HIV positives for more than 96 months. HIV affected
households were losing Rs. 862.50 on an average per month due to be absent from work whereas
Rs. 520.37 was losing by the CI affected households for the same reason. Less than half of the
HIV affected households in comparison with less than one-third of the CI affected households
and around one-fifth Non-CI affected households had taken money from their relatives, money
lenders and very few from the Banks. HIV affected households borrowed money on an average
was more than 10 times higher than Non-CI affected households, however the average amount
borrowed by CI affected households outweighs the HIV affected houses average borrowings.
There was no significant impact on women’s average loss of income but there is the significant
difference in man-days lost by women members of the HIV affected and CI affected households.
Conclusion: To address the severe impact of HIV and AIDS several policies and
programmes like, better access to quality treatment facilities, combination of relief and
mitigation of services, entrepreneurship training for women and young adults, support for setting
up micro-enterprises, creation of national treatment fund, educational support to stop dropping
out from schools and provision of community insurance and food relief, should be in operation.