Prevention as Entertainment at Gay Parties

1. Service organisation(s)

AIDS-Hilfe Bielefeld; http://www.aidshilfe-bielefeld.de/Herzenslust Bielefeld; http://www.herzenslust.de/herzenslust/front_content.php?idcat=887

2. Authors

Peter Struck
Oliver Schulte
Christian Kursim
Jürgen Bayer
Sabine Sauer
Julia Schmalz
Hella von Unger

3. Scientific guidance

Berlin Social Science Centre (WZB); Research Group Public Health, Berlin www.wzb.eu

4. Preventive measure subjected to quality assurance

“Gleitgel, Gummi und Popo”, which translates to “Lubricant, Condom and Bum” is a trash-drag performance with folk elements. The prevention campaign “Gleitgel, Gummi und Popo” was developed by Herzenslust Bielefeld and is aimed at the target group of gay and bisexual men. It is a drag performance with folk song character, intending to convey a safer sex message in an amusing way (“infotainment”). For this purpose, a folksy earworm (“Servus, Grüzi und Hallo” by Maria and Margot Hellwig) had been rephrased into a safer sex “propaganda song”. The members of Herzenslust perform the song live in dirndl drag, singing along to pre-recorded music under the name “Schwulliesels Töchter”, which literally means “Gay Lizzie’s Daughters”.

5. Aim of the quality assurance

The quality assurance was aimed at evaluating the “Gleitgel, Gummi und Popo” campaign.

6. What were the benefits of the quality assurance?

The evaluation was very useful: It provided suggestions for improving the campaign (e.g. intelligibility of the lyrics) and for the planning and implementation of further campaigns, it provided further insights and competence development for those involved (e.g. can the different perspectives of Herzenslust, guests, hosts, DJs and other collaborative partners be better understood) and it enhanced the motivation of the Herzenslust workers. Moreover, the results were used in public relations, thus strengthening the external position of Herzenslust Bielefeld and AIDS-Hilfe Bielefeld.

The quality assurance provided benefits for:

Other benefit: Collaboration with collaborative partners
External appearance of the measure
Professional development of workers
The service organisation (political benefit)
Practical prevention work
Collaboration within the team
Collaboration with the target group

7. Methodology

The evaluation was aimed at appraising the acceptance of the project among and its effects on the target group. The first step was to define the objectives and strategies of the prevention campaign using the ZiWi method, followed by the development of an evaluation design, which envisaged a combination (triangulation) of data sources and methods – this means: The effects of the campaign were to be evaluated from different perspectives using different methods at two different points in time.

Three instruments were developed:
1. A self-evaluation sheet of the prevention campaign to be completed by the Herzenslust workers
2. A sheet for monitoring the campaign and the target group’s response to be completed by other participants and

3. A short questionnaire to be completed by the guests at the end of the campaign

Using these instruments, data was collected in spring 2007 at two parties in Bielefeld: At a party organised by Herzenslust and AIDS-Hilfe Bielefeld (HL Party, 31/3/2007) and at a gay-lesbian party in a commercial club (Magnus Party, 5/5/2007).
The data obtained from the guest interviews was evaluated by means of Grafstat (version 2). The open answers were transferred into a Word document and classified into groups, categorised (i.e. provided with headings) and interpreted within the scope of a group meeting. These results were compared with the observations and self-observations (the results of which were compiled in Word documents). The results were subsequently consolidated in tabular form.

Which method(s) of this platform was/were applied?

Rapid assessment
Participant observation

8. Results of the quality assurance

For the most part, the feedback of the guests was positive (acceptance, appreciation, support of the safer sex message and Herzenslust’s campaigns).
There was also critical feedback, for example regarding the intelligibility of the lyrics and the way the song was performed (dirndl outfit, “silliness”).
The different perception and assessment of the audience’s responses was surprising: Herzenslust was self-critical, the observers had different opinions (interested participation and enthusiasm in front of the stage and less interested to disinterested observers at the back) and the majority of interviewed guests gave positive feedback.
When comparing the two parties, the answers of the guests were similar in many respects – this was also surprising, since both the observers and Herzenslust rather noticed the differences, for example regarding the priority of the performance – at the non-commercial Herzenslust Party, the performance was the highlight of the evening that made the guests sway to the music and sing along, whereas at the commercial Magnus Party, Herzenslust was more of an “ice-breaker” and caused a flurry of flashing lights as the guests took pictures with their mobile phones.

9. Experience and tips

The evaluation was very useful, but also very time-consuming.
A lot of time and sufficient support should be available – especially for the preparatory work before the survey, but also for the processing and evaluation of results.
The combination (triangulation) of data and methods was interesting and informative, but it requires guidance (otherwise, it is easy to lose track of things).
The involvement of “neutral” third parties (AH workers from other areas) was advantageous for the evaluation and contemplation process.
The approach and the methods are suitable for quality assurance of HIV prevention at AIDS service organisations; in future counselling, the workers should continue to decide on site what objective is pursued with the quality development process – instead of the scientific interest, the major focus should be the interest and the relevance on site!