Introduction:Research has documented the prevalence of different HIV/AIDS prevention programs launched to reduce the spread of the virus. However, the extent to which the success or otherwise of these programs are achieved is rarely discussed. This study addresses this gap by analyzing the impact of three socioeconomic parameters on the evaluation of HIV/AIDS prevention programs in the Southern Senatorial District of Cross River State, Nigeria.Methods: A sample of 239 health care employees selected using the proportional stratified random sampling technique participated in the study. A priori power analysis (using G*power) indicated that the sample size was large enough to achieve a 96.7% statistical power. Data was collected using a structured questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis assessed the dimensionality of the instrument. Acceptable construct and discriminant validity and composite reliability coefficients were obtained. At the .05 alpha level, the null hypotheses were tested using a one-way analysis of variance.Findings: Findings indicated that the evaluation of HIV/AIDS prevention programs significantly varied with the level of funding provided (F[2, 236]=81.11, p<.001), human capacity available (F[2, 236]=40.91, p<.001), and stigmatization to people living with AIDS (F[2, 236]=40.79, p<.001). Health facilities with higher funding and human capacity successfully evaluated HIV/AIDS prevention programs. However, the evaluation of HIV/AIDS prevention programs was lower in areas with a high level of stigmatization. Conclusion and implication:This study's findings provided evidence that funding, human capacity, and stigmatization affect how HIV/AIDS pandemic can be effectively evaluated. This study implies that additional responsibility is required for public health workers to promote quality service delivery across different health facilities.

This study analysed the monitoring and evaluation of HIV/AIDS prevention programmes in the Southern Senatorial District of Cross River State, Nigeria. The study considered different levels of care/support and tested for locational variations in the monitoring/evaluation of HIV/AIDs prevention programmes. A descriptive survey design was utilised. This study covered 596 public health employees (doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and laboratory employees) in the study area. Using the proportional stratified random sampling procedure, a sample of 239 respondents was chosen. Data was collected using a questionnaire constructed by the researchers and validated by specialists. Data gathered were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results indicated that HIV/AIDs programmes had been successfully monitored/evaluated to a high extent. High success rates in the monitoring/evaluation of HIV/AIDs prevention programmes are attributable to high rates of care/support provided to people living with HIV/AIDs. There was a significant variation in the monitoring/evaluation of HIV/AIDs prevention programmes based on the location of health facilities, with higher rates recorded for urban areas. Based on the findings, it was concluded that the monitoring/evaluation of HIV/AIDs prevention programmes in the Southern Senatorial District of Cross River State had recorded a significant level of success. The study recommended, among others, that there should be even distribution of medical facilities, resources and personnel to both urban and rural areas to promote equity and access to materials needed to contain or mitigate the spread of the pandemic across all locations.

No abstract