Dataset Information

Reducing HIV-related stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings: A systematic review of quantitative evidence.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Stigma and discrimination (SAD) related to HIV compromise access and adherence to treatment and support programs among people living with HIV (PLHIV). The ambitious goal of ending the epidemic of HIV by 2030 set by the United Nations Joint Program of HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) will thus only be achieved if HIV-related stigma and discrimination are reduced. The objective of this review was to locate, appraise and describe international literature reporting on interventions that addressed HIV-related SAD in healthcare settings. METHODS:The databases searched were: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Excerpta Medica Database from Elsevier (EMBASE), PubMed and Psychological Information (PsycINFO) database. Two individuals independently appraised the quality of the papers using appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Data were extracted from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool from JBI. Quality of evidence for major outcomes was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS:We retained 14 records reporting on eight studies. Five categories of SAD reduction (information-based, skills building, structural, contact-based and biomedical interventions) were identified. Training popular opinion leaders (POLs) resulted in significantly lower mean avoidance intent scores (MD = -1.87 [95% CI -2.05 to -1.69]), mean prejudicial attitude scores (MD = -3.77 [95% CI -5.4 to -2.09]) and significantly higher scores in mean compliance to universal precaution (MD = 1.65 [95% CI 1.41 to 1.89]) when compared to usual care (moderate quality evidence). The Summary of Findings table (SOF) is shown in Table 1. CONCLUSIONS:Evidence of moderate quality indicates that training popular opinion leaders is effective in reducing avoidance intent and prejudicial attitude and improving compliance to universal precaution. Very low quality evidence indicates that professionally-assisted peer group interventions, modular interactive training, participatory self-guided assessment and intervention, contact strategy combined with information giving and empowerment are effective in reducing HIV-related stigma.Further Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are needed. Future trials need to use up-to-date and validated instruments to measure stigma and discrimination.

SUBMITTER: Feyissa GT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6347272 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reducing HIV-related stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings: A systematic review of quantitative evidence.

Feyissa Garumma Tolu GT Lockwood Craig C Woldie Mirkuzie M Munn Zachary Z

PloS one 20190125 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Stigma and discrimination (SAD) related to HIV compromise access and adherence to treatment and support programs among people living with HIV (PLHIV). The ambitious goal of ending the epidemic of HIV by 2030 set by the United Nations Joint Program of HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) will thus only be achieved if HIV-related stigma and discrimination are reduced. The objective of this review was to locate, appraise and describe international literature reporting on interventions that addres ...[more]

PMID: 30682131

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThere is strong global commitment to eliminate HIV-related stigma, and work in this area continues to evolve. Wide variation exists in frameworks and measures used.MethodsBuilding on the existing knowledge syntheses, we carried out a systematic review to identify frameworks and measures aiming to understand or assess internalized stigma, stigma and discrimination in healthcare, and in law and policy. The review addressed two questions: Which conceptual frameworks have been proposed to assess internalized stigma, stigma and discrimination experienced in healthcare settings, and stigma and discrimination entrenched in national laws and policies? Which measures of these different types of stigma and discrimination have been proposed and what are their descriptive properties? Searches, completed on 6 May 2021, cover publications from 2008 onwards. The review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021249348), the protocol incorporated stakeholder input, and the data are available in the Systematic Review Data Repository.Results and discussionSixty-nine frameworks and 50 measures met the inclusion criteria. Critical appraisal figures and detailed evidence tables summarize these resources. We established a compendium of frameworks and a catalogue of measures of HIV-related stigma and discrimination. Seventeen frameworks and 10 measures addressed at least two of our focus domains, with least attention to stigma and discrimination in law and policy. The lack of common definitions and variability in scope and structure of HIV-related frameworks and measures creates challenges in understanding what is being addressed and measured, both in relation to stigma and efforts to mitigate or reduce its harmful effects. Having comparable data is essential for tracking change over time within and between interventions.ConclusionsThis systematic review provides an evidence base of current understandings of HIV-related stigma and discrimination and how further conceptual clarification and increased adaptation of existing tools might help overcome challenges across the HIV care continuum. With people living with HIV at the centre, experts from different stakeholder groups could usefully collaborate to guide a more streamlined approach for the field. This can help to achieve global targets and understand, measure and help mitigate the impact of different types of HIV-related stigma on people's health and quality of life.

Project description:IntroductionStigma and discrimination are important barriers to HIV epidemic control. We implemented a multi-pronged facility-level intervention to reduce stigma and discrimination at health facilities across three high-burden provinces. Key components of the intervention included measurement of stigma, data review and use, participatory training of healthcare workers (HCWs), and engagement of people living with HIV and key populations in all stigma reduction activities.MethodsFrom July 2018 to July 2019, we assessed HIV-related stigma and discrimination among patients and HCWs at 10 facilities at baseline and 9 months following an intervention. A repeated measures design was used to assess the change in stigma and discrimination among HCWs and a repeated cross-sectional design assessed the change in stigma and discrimination experienced by PLHIV. HCWs at target facilities were invited at random and PLHIV were recruited when presenting for care during the two assessment periods. McNemar's test was used to compare paired proportions among HCWs, and chi-square test was used to compare proportions among PLHIV. Mixed models were used to compare outcomes before and after the intervention.ResultsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 649 and 652 PLHIV prior to and following the intervention, respectively. At baseline, over the previous 12 months, 21% reported experiencing discrimination, 16% reported self-stigma, 14% reported HIV disclosure without consent and 7% had received discriminatory reproductive health advice. Nine months after the intervention, there was a decrease in reported stigma and discrimination across all domains to 15%, 11%, 7% and 3.5%, respectively (all p-values <0.05). Among HCWs, 672 completed the pre- and post-intervention assessment. At baseline, 81% reported fear of HIV infection, 69% reported using unnecessary precautions when caring for PLHIV, 44% reported having observed other staff discriminate against PLHIV, 54% reported negative attitudes towards PLHIV and 41% felt uncomfortable working with colleagues living with HIV. The proportions decreased after the intervention to 52%, 34%, 32%, 35% and 24%, respectively (all p-values <0.05).ConclusionsA multi-pronged facility-level intervention was successful at reducing healthcare-associated HIV-related stigma in Vietnam. The findings support the scale-up of this intervention in Vietnam and highlight key components potentially applicable in other settings.

Project description:IntroductionResearch shows that mental health-related stigma, stereotypes, and prejudices have a negative impact on the patients themselves as well as on their families and social entourage. Healthcare professionals, whose expertise and professional ethos are historically acknowledged by public opinion, are expected to play a major role in combating discrimination against psychiatric patients. In this study, we aimed to assess the attitudes of Greek healthcare professionals toward mental illness and people suffering from it.Materials and methodsIt is a non-interventional, analytic study, in which 479 health workers from a tertiary hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, participated. Every single hospital service -except the personnel of the Psychiatric Clinic- was included in our study: from the cleaning service to the administrative staff and the auxiliary staff such as stretcher carriers, food and nutrition services' staff, and social workers, the nursing staff, and finally the attending physicians, taking into consideration that the psychiatric patient, from the moment he/she enters the hospital, consecutively gets in contact with every work grade of the healthcare establishment. Participants' attitudes concerning mental illness have been evaluated using the Opinions about Mental Illness Scale (OMI), the Social Distance Scale (SDS), and the Level of Contact Report (LCR-12).ResultsDespite the high level of familiarity [as evaluated with LCR-12; mean score (μ): 8.82 ± 1.73], the employees displayed a rather poor willingness to interact with psychiatric patients (as measured with SDS; μ:11.68 ± 4.28), and endorsed significant prejudice toward individuals with mental disorders (assessed using OMI subscales; Social Discrimination μ: 22.99 ± 12.08, Social Restriction μ: 17.45 ± 9.07, Social Care μ: 21.04 ± 4.12, Social Integration μ: 16.38 ± 4.68, Etiology μ: 9.80 ± 4.95). Age and education stood out as the main determinants of participants' attitudes, with younger and highly educated participants to have shown a relatively refined profile.ConclusionThese results are not significantly improved compared to those of previous decades in Greek healthcare professionals and call for critical reflection and targeted stigma-reduction efforts.

Project description:BackgroundThe barriers to uptake of guidelines underscore the importance of going beyound the mere synthesis of evidence to tailoring the synthesized evidence into local contexts and situations. This requires in-depth exploration of local factors. This project aimed to assess contextual barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a guideline developed to reduce HIV-related stigma and discrimination (SAD) in the Ethiopian healthcare setting.MethodsA descriptive qualitative research study was conducted using a semi-structured interview guide informed by the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO) framework. The interview was conducted among a purposive sample of seven key informants from Jimma University and Jimma Zone HIV Prevention and Control Office. The interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed using Atlas ti version 7.5 software packages.ResultsGuideline attributes, provider-related factors and organizational and practice-related were identified as factors that can potentially affect the implementation of the guideline. The presence of expert patients were identified as agents for guideline implementation, whilst regular health education programs in addition to initiatives related to service quality improvement, were identified as suitable platforms to assist with the implementation of this guideline. Study participants recommended that the guideline should be disseminated through multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, gate keepers such as opinion leaders and unit heads, one-to-five networks and mentorship programs, as well as training, workshops and posters. The current study also indicated that continuous monitoring, evaluation and mentorship are critical elements in the integration of the guideline into the system of the hospital.ConclusionsThis study identified that guideline implementation can make use of existing structures and pathways such as MDT meetings, service quality improvement initiatives, one-to-five networks, training and workshops. Teamwork and partnership with stakeholders should be strengthened to strengthen facilitators and tackle barriers related to the implementation of the guideline. Effective implementation of the guideline also requires establishing an implementation structure. Moreover, indicators developed to track the implementation of stigma reduction guideline should be integrated into mentorship, MDT meetings and evaluation programs of the hospital to improve performance and to assist data collection on implementation experiences.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Nearly 40 years into the HIV epidemic, the persistence of HIV stigma is a matter of grave urgency. Discrimination (i.e. enacted stigma) in healthcare settings is particularly problematic as it deprives people of critical healthcare services while also discouraging preventive care seeking by confirming fears of anticipated stigma. We review existing research on the effectiveness of stigma interventions in healthcare settings of low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where stigma control efforts are often further complicated by heavy HIV burdens, less developed healthcare systems, and the layering of HIV stigma with discrimination towards other marginalized identities. This review describes progress in this field to date and identifies research gaps to guide future directions for research. METHODS:We conducted a scoping review of HIV reduction interventions in LMIC healthcare settings using Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus (through March 5, 2020). Information regarding study design, stigma measurement techniques, intervention features and study findings were extracted. We also assessed methodological rigor using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for systematic reviews. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:Our search identified 8766 studies, of which 19 were included in the final analysis. All but one study reported reductions in stigma following the intervention. The studies demonstrated broad regional distribution across LMIC and many employed designs that made use of a control condition. However, these strengths masked key shortcomings including a dearth of research from the lowest income category of LMIC and a lack of interventions to address institutional or structural determinants of stigma. Lastly, despite the fact that most stigma measures were based on existing instruments, only three studies described steps taken to validate or adapt the stigma measures to local settings. CONCLUSIONS:Combating healthcare stigma in LMIC demands interventions that can simultaneously address resource constraints, high HIV burden and more severe stigma. Our findings suggest that this will require more objective, reliable and culturally adaptable stigma measures to facilitate meaningful programme evaluation and comparison across studies. All but one study concluded that their interventions were effective in reducing healthcare stigma. Though encouraging, the fact that most studies measured impact using self-reported measures suggests that social desirability may bias results upwards. Homogeneity of study results also hindered our ability to draw substantive conclusions about potential best practices to guide the design of future stigma reduction programmes.

Project description:AimsThis systematic review compiled evidence on interventions to reduce mental health-related stigma in primary health care (PHC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Studies targeting PHC staff (including non-professionals) were included. Primary outcomes were stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory behaviours.MethodsData collection included two strategies. First, previous systematic reviews were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria of the current review. Second, a new search was done, covering the time since the previous reviews, i.e. January 2013 to May 2017. Five search concepts were combined in order to capture relevant literature: stigma, mental health, intervention, PHC staff and LMICs. A qualitative analysis of all included full-texts was done with software MAXQDA. Full-texts were analysed with regards to the content of interventions, didactic methods, mental disorders, cultural adaptation, type of outcome measure and primary outcomes. Furthermore, a risk of bias assessment was undertaken.ResultsA total of 18 studies were included. Risk of bias was rated as high in most included studies. Only six studies had tested their intervention against a control condition, two of which had used random allocation. Most frequently used interventions were lectures providing theoretical information. Many studies also used interactive methods (N = 9), discussed case studies (N = 8) or used role plays (N = 5). Three studies reported that they had used clinical practice and supervision. Results of these studies were mixed. No or little effects were found for brief training interventions (e.g. 1 h to 1 day). Longer training interventions with more sophisticated didactic methods produced statistically significant changes in validated stigma questionnaires. These results have to be interpreted with caution due to risk of bias. Methods for cultural adaptation of interventions were rarely documented.ConclusionsMore rigorous trials are needed in LMICs to test interventions that target discriminatory behaviours in relationship with patients. Cultural adaptation of stigma interventions and structural/institutional factors should be more explicitly addressed in such trials.

Dataset Information

Reducing HIV-related stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings: A systematic review of quantitative evidence.

Publications

Reducing HIV-related stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings: A systematic review of quantitative evidence.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets