Purusing the paper this evening, my brow furoughed as I read this article: New Web Site Seeks to Fight Myths About Circumcision and H.I.V.

While the intention to dispel misconceptions, especially dangerous ones such as “…circumcision is 100 percent protective so men can stop using condoms…” is undoubtedly a valuable and necessary endeavor, I would be interested to view the envisioned pattern for dissemination of this information. Clearly, Sub-Saharan Africa is a target area for this information, but is a website the best means to distribute information in this context when it is estimated that only 5.6% of the population uses the internet? Furthermore, in my experience the use of traditional healers takes place predominantly in rural areas and if we generalize this experience, then the ability of these target individuals to utilize the website is further hindered by the rarity of internet access in rural areas. I realize that this may just be a piece of a greater plan to dispel these myths, and one that requires relatively low inputs of resources and time, I would be keen to see how much dependence is put on this tool.

This highlights the increasingly common battle discussed in my last post on effective use of technology in the developing world.

Final thought for further contemplation, how do health literacy levels impact the approach for dissemination of accurate information?