- 10 - - 11 - - 12 - - 13 - - 14 - - 15 - - 16 - - 17 - - 18 -

IV. KNOWLEDGE ABOUT V.D.

Those who had read the statement through were asked: “ Did you know about these things before you read the statement?” (Question 11b)

The table below shows the proportions of those who read the statement and of the whole sample answering in different ways.

Thus altogether 36% of those who read the statement said that either some or all of the information given in it was new to them.

Or put in another way 64% of all those interviewed said they knew something about V.D. before the statement was published, 46% saying they knew all about it and 18% that they knew part of it.

It might be thought that reticence on the subject might cause some informants to claim ignorance whilst really knowing something about it. However, interviewers were instructed to write down any remarks made spontaneously apropos of this question, and an analysis of these remarks suggests that reticence was not important. They were as follows:-

It will be seen from the nature of these remarks that the majority of them were made by people who said that they were ignorant or partly ignorant of V.D. before reading the statement. In fact, excluding those who “had never thought about it” or “were not interested”, 31% made such remarks as against 36% who claimed ignorance or partial ignorance before reading the statement. This suggests that the ignorance was genuine and not due to reticence.

A breakdown of results by men and women shows a marked differences, men being better informed previously than women.

Thus as many as 47% of the women had gained some information only from the statement as against 22% of the men.

Analysis by age groups shows a definite trend, older people more frequently saying that they had previous knowledge about V.D. than younger people.

64% of those who had read the advertisement in the youngest group had acquired new knowledge. It will be remembered that a lower proportion in this than in other groups had read the statement, and the results of the different questions show consistently that this group is the least informed on the subject.

Of the higher income groups a greater proportion had previous knowledge about V.D. than of the lower income groups.

93% of men over 40 who were in the last war said they knew about it before. Other men of this age also showed a high proportion giving this answer.

In order to find out in more detail what people knew about V.D. three questions were asked: “Did they know what the diseases were,” “How were they spread”, and what were the symptoms”?

“Do you know what the venereal diseases are?” (Question 8)

This question was asked of the whole sample with the exception only of the 3% with whom interviews were abandoned.

Investigators were asked to write down the actual words with which informants replied to this question, and to allow plenty of time for people to answer before going with the interview. It was thought that a simple “Yes or No” answer would not give sufficient information, but on the other hand if the answer was “Yes” to follow it up with the question “What are they?” would have been to press the point too far.

It was found that the answers received could be classified into “Yes”, “Doubtful” and “No”, with further sub-divisions. It should be noted, however, that these results people’s own estimates of whether they knew what the venereal diseases were, and “Yes” answer does not necessarily mean that the informant has correct knowledge but only that he thinks he knows. The results of the subsequent questions “How are they spread?” and “What are the Symptoms?” show that a substantial majority of those giving a “Yes” answer had good information.

The sub-divisions of the different answers were as follows:- A few examples of actual answers are given below to illustrate the types of answer included in each.

Yes

(1) Those who said they know “all about them”, or gave answers suggesting definite knowledge. In this group were included men who said they had learnt about V.D. in the last war.

“Yes, army doctors told us about it in the last war”.

“They are sexual diseases”.

“Father explained them to me. They were called ‘clap’ or ‘a packet’ in the last war.

“Been abroad. I ought to know”.

(2) Those who replied with the names of the diseases, or of one of them: syphilis, gonorrhea, “pox” or “clap”.

(3) Those who said they knew about them but did not describe them in any way.

(4) Those who said they knew something about them, or knew only from what they had read in the newspapers or seen in films such as “Damaged Goods”.

“Well I know something about it”.

“I’ve learnt about them from the statement”.

These answers are included in the “Yes” group as examination of the forms on which they occur shows that they have more in common with those professing knowledge than those classified as “Doubtful”. A small proportion of them, however, are border line cases between “Yes” and “Doubtful”.

Doubtful

(5) Those who said they were not quite sure but had heard about venereal diseases, or who said they only knew the names.

“Well in a way. I’ve a vague idea. It’s never interested me much”.

“More or less. I can’t name them”.

“No - I know the names, syphilis or gonorrhea, but I wouldn’t know whether I had them”.

(6) Those who gave vague replies some suggesting some knowledge, but also confusion and others too vague to interpret.

“Diseases which ruin people’s lives”.

“They bring one out in scabs or something”.

“Well I suppose it’s something to do with womb trouble”.

No

(7) Those who simply said they did not know.

The proportions giving these different types of answer were as follows:-

It is possible that some of group (5) did know about the diseases but did not wish to appear too much interested in them. Thus at least 69% of those asked knew something about the diseases or thought they “knew what they were”.

Analysis of these results by those who had read the statement through, and those who had not read it through or had not seen it at all, is as follows. (The 3% of the sample with whom interviews were abandoned, classified above as “No information”, are, of course, excluded as it is not known whether or not they read the statement).

A very much higher proportion of those who had read the statement gave “Yes” answers than of those who had not. However, 5% of those who had read it said they did not know. It should be noted that this question was put before informants were asked whether they had read the statement through. It is possible that some of those who said they did not know meant that they were unable to repeat the names of the diseases. Shyness may also have been partly responsible. However, as will be seen later 6% of those who read the statement thought that it was not very clear or that some of the words used were difficult to understand.

Another possible explanation is that a proportion of those interviewed were almost completely ignorant about sex matters, and if this were so the statement would mean very little to them even though they read it through. It has already been pointed out that under 20 age group knew less than other groups.

Analysis by sex shows that a higher proportion of men than of women said they knew what the diseases were.

It will be remembered that men more frequently said they knew about V.D. before making the statement, and answers to subsequent questions also show that men are on the whole rather better informed than women. About the same proportion of men as of women had read the statement.

In the table below results for the youngest age group are compared with results for the whole sample.

The youngest age group shows a relatively low proportion saying they know about V.D. and a correspondingly high proportion ignorant. It will be remembered that rather fewer people in this group than in the older groups had seen and read the statement, and also that a relatively high proportion said that they knew nothing or very little about V.D. before reading the statement.

Among the other age groups there are only slight differences. These suggest that the 20 to 30 group are not quite as well informed as the older people. But the differences are barely significant.

Breakdown by income group shows the higher income groups to consider themselves to be better informed than the lower. It will be remembered that a higher proportion in the group read the statement.

The main difference is in group (2), a very much higher proportion in the higher income groups giving the names of the diseases.

Of men who had been in the last war 89% gave “Yes” answers, including 19% whose answers fell in group (l). Other men aged over 40 also showed high proportions saying that they knew about V.D.

“How are they spread” (Question 9)

Those who said they knew what the venereal diseases were, or who gave “doubtful” answers, were asked “How are they spread?” as a check on their knowledge.

As in the case of the previous question replies were written down in the informants’ own words and classified later.

It was found that most replies could be grouped under the headings: “Correct or probably correct”, “Knowledge plus confusion”, “Incorrect”, and “Don’t know”. In addition some said that they knew how the diseases were spread but did not describe how, and a few gave answers which were difficult to interpret and have been classified as “doubtful”.

The sub-divisions made of these groups are as follows:-

Correct or Probably Correct

(1) Intercourse with an infected person.

“Union with an infected person”

“Through intercourse with a person who already has V.D.”

(2) “Intercourse” or “Sexual intercourse” without further comment.

(3) Free sexual habits. Immorality. Prostitutes.

“Not being too prudent sexually”.

“Free and easy sex behaviour. Co-habiting with prostitutes”.

“Through prostitutes”.

“largely by immoral behaviour”.

“Goings on is responsible for most of it”.

“Know about it” (Unspecified)

(4) Those who said they know how V.D. were spread and did not make any further comment.

Knowledge plus confusion

(5) In this group were classified answers in which both intercourse and some other way, such as lavatories; drinking vessels, and towels were said to be sources of infection.

“Usually direct contact, and occasionally from lavatories or utensils”.

“By intercourse and lavatory seats. Also nurses and dentists can catch it”.

“Intercourse or infection in a public lavatory”.

“Sexual intercourse or after using articles used by those with the disease”.

Doubtful answers

(6) In this group were placed answers which were difficult to interpret.

“By contagion”.

“By not being clean”.

“By infection”.

Incorrect

(7) Those who mentioned only lavatory seats, drinking vessels, towels, etc. and did not mention sexual intercourse.

“Lavatories and through touching things used by infected people”.

“By drinking out of the same cup as someone who has it”.

“From lavatories and cups”.

The table below shows the proportions of those asked and of the whole sample giving these various types of reply. All except those who had definitely said they did not know what the venereal diseases were (and those with whom interviews were abandoned) were asked this question.

If those who said they knew but did not say how the diseases were spread are counted as correct, then 60% of the sample and 69% of those asked the question, knew how the diseases were spread. In addition 10% of the sample knew that V.D. were spread through intercourse although they thought they were spread in other ways also.

Thus, at least 70% had some correct knowledge. This may be compared with the proportions giving different answers to the previous question. It will be remembered what 69% said with a fair amount of certainty that they knew what the venereal diseases were, and that a further 17% were a little doubtful about their knowledge a gave vague answers.

Only 4% gave wholly incorrect answers, and 91% (12% of those asked) said they did not know. It is possible once again that “Don’t know” expressed shyness rather the ignorance in some cases.

Breakdown by those who had read and had not read the statement is as follows:-

The proportions giving correct or probably correct answers, and saying that they knew how the diseases were spread, is substantially higher among those who had read the advertisement. Of those who had not read it about a fifth said they did not know and 9% gave incorrect answers.

In answer to the previous question 5% of those who had read the statement said chat they did not know what the venereal diseases were. The proportion saying “don’t know” is a little higher in the case of this question which is perhaps a more difficult one for reticent people to answer and again “don’t know” may in some cases conceal shyness. On the other hand the ignorance may be genuine for the reasons pointed out previously.

Analysis by sex gives the following result:-

It will be seen that a higher proportion of men than of wonen said they knew how the diseases were spread without making any further comment. The proportions in groups (1), (2) and (3) are about the same for the two sexes. The results suggest that men were rather better informed than women, but also rather more reticent. (It should be remembered that all investigators were women).

Analysis by age groups once more shows the youngest group to have less knowledge than older people. Among other groups there were no statistically significant difference and in the table below results for the under 20 group are compared with results for all groups.

Thu number in the under 20 group is small, but it is clear that even among those young people who said they knew what the venereal diseases were there was less knowledge than among other groups.

Analysis by income group shows no statistically significant differences. In the higher income groups rather higher proportions gave correct and confused answers than in the lower income groups, a slightly smaller proportion saying that they did not know, but application of the margin of error shows this may have occurred by chance owing to the smallness of the sample.

In the same way results for men over 40 are unreliable because the number answering is small and the differences (which tend as before in the direction of more knowledge) are slight.

Knowledge of Symptoms (Question 15)

Interviewers were told they might ask this question in any, one of three given ways. These were:-

“What would you tell anybody to look for to see if they were infected?”

“Do you know what the symptoms are?”

“Do you know how these diseases first show themselves?”

The question was to be asked of all women who had seen the statement and agreed with its publication, and of men who had seen it and agreed with it if the interviewer thought that the question would not cause embarrassment. 60% of the men in this group were asked.

No attempt was made to differentiate between the symptoms of syphilis and gonorrhea.

The most frequently mentioned symptoms were: ulcers, sores, pimples, rash, irritation and discharge, and 51% of those asked mentioned one or more of these.

Thu 51% naming specific symptoms includes 5% who mentioned that these appeared in or near the reproductive organs. The rest did not specify any part of the body.

The 75 classified as “uncertain and confused” includes 5% who, said they were net quite sure about them and 2% who gave vague and miscellaneous replies.

Of those who had not read the statement through but were asked this question (213 in all), only 22% named symptoms and 5% said they know what the symptoms were, 62% said they did not know and 11% were uncertain or gave vague replies.

It is quite clear from these results that those who had read the statement was better informed about the symptoms than those who had not. However it should be borne in mind that only 67% of the whole sample were asked this question, and only about third of those who had not read the statement were asked.

Other breakdowns of the results of this question yield little information. The number asked in the under 20 age group is too small to give statistically reliable results. Otherwise such differences as there are bear out the evidence given by other questions that certain groups are better informed than others, but the differences are not large enough to be significant.

What to do if infected (Questions 13 and 14)

As a further check on knowledge of what was said in the statement, the question “What would you advise anybody to do who thought she (or he) was infected?” was asked. This question was put to the same group of people as the question about symptoms, except that rather more of the men were included.

Replies were as follows:-

A further question “Do you think there is anything which stops people going for treatment?” was asked.