Stigmatizing attitudes towards people living with HIV (PLHIV) are common among young people.

School-based HIV/AIDS education is a common and well-proven intervention strategy for providing information on HIV/AIDS to young people. However, lack of skills among teachers for imparting sensitive information to students can lead to programme failure in terms of achieving goals.

In the Asia-Pacific Region, young people bear a large proportion of new HIV infections, and there is a need to consult them about how best to tailor prevention initiatives to meet their needs.

Across the Asia Pacific region, adolescents aged 10 – 19 years who are living with HIV face unique challenges as they transition from childhood to adolescence and into adulthood.

This study aimed to assess HIV-related knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAPs) of high school students in Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR) because inadequate knowledge, negative attitudes and risky practices are major hindrances to preventing the spread of HIV.

Background: Considering the significant impact of school-based HIV/AIDS education, in 2007, a curriulum on HIV/AIDS was incorporated in the national curriculum for high school students of Bangladesh through the Government’s HIV-prevention program.

This review presents the results of an assessment of the policies and practices related to prevention education in ten countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA region). It consists of a regional overview (Chapters 1–6) and ten individual country assessments (Appendices 2–11).

This review is a synthesis of situation-response analyses (SRA) on the education sector response to HIV, drugs and sexual health undertaken in five countries: Brunei Darussalam (2012), Indonesia (2010), Malaysia (2012), the Philippines (2012) and Timor-Leste (2012).

The main purpose of this study is to conduct a situation-response analysis of the education sector’s response to HIV, drugs and sexual health.

This study gives an overview of HIV, drug and sexual health education (HDSHE) in the Philippines and analyzes the education sector’s response in six areas: organizational structure; policy, planning and leadership; partnerships, coordination and mainstreaming; program response; monitoring and eva