Dataset Information

A pretest-posttest design to assess the effectiveness of an intervention to reduce HIV-related stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings in Vietnam.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Stigma 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.

Methods

From 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.

Results

Semi-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).

Conclusions

A 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.

SUBMITTER: Pollack TM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9274370 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

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:Strengthening pre-adolescents knowledge and skills through an age- and culturally-appropriate intervention could prevent health issues later in life. Early interventions could influence the trajectory of future risky behaviour, and may influence health behaviour amongst their parents. The CIrCLE of Life Initiative was developed to address HIV and obesity. We evaluated whether the combined intervention increased knowledge, enhanced skills, and/or promoted healthy behaviour among students (9-12 years old) and their parents. The study was conducted from May to December 2018. Trained educators delivered 30-min lessons over ten consecutive weeks with 537 Grade 6 students at five government-run schools, in a district, in South Africa. Schools were purposively selected based on socioeconomic status and urban-rural classification. Students communicated with parents through shared homework activities. A pretest-posttest study design was used, with a 3-month follow up. Both groups completed self-administered paper-based questionnaires. A score of subscales was used in analysis. The pretest and posttest scores were compared for students and parents using a dependent t-test. Differences in outcomes by school quintile were compared using one-way ANOVA. Response rates were high for both students (80.6%) and their parents (83.4%). Statistically significant differences were observed in HIV knowledge in students pretest (mean 8.04, SD 3.10) and posttest scores (mean 10.1, SD 2.70; p < 0.01), and their parents (mean 10.32, SD 2.80 vs 11.0, SD 2.50; p < 0.01). For both students and parents, pre- and post-test obesity awareness mean scores were similar, 1.93, SD 0.92 and 2.78, SD 0.57; p < 0.01, for students; and 2.47, SD 0.82 and 2.81, SD 0.54; p < 0.01, for parents. In the posttest, statistically significant changes were also observed in both groups, enhancing skills in measuring body mass index and pulse rate, and interpreting food labels. Students had a high intention to share gained knowledge with parents who had a high intention to receive it (89.4 and 89.5%, respectively). The intervention increased knowledge about HIV and obesity-related awareness, and it enhanced skills in selected outcomes among pre-adolescents and parents. Accurate messages and enhanced communication skills could support inter-generational knowledge transfer. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04307966 retrospectively registered on 12 March 2020.

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:BackgroundSocial distancing measures to address the US coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic may have notable health and social impacts.Methods and findingsWe conducted a longitudinal pretest-posttest comparison group study to estimate the change in COVID-19 case growth before versus after implementation of statewide social distancing measures in the US. The primary exposure was time before (14 days prior to, and through 3 days after) versus after (beginning 4 days after, to up to 21 days after) implementation of the first statewide social distancing measures. Statewide restrictions on internal movement were examined as a secondary exposure. The primary outcome was the COVID-19 case growth rate. The secondary outcome was the COVID-19-attributed mortality growth rate. All states initiated social distancing measures between March 10 and March 25, 2020. The mean daily COVID-19 case growth rate decreased beginning 4 days after implementation of the first statewide social distancing measures, by 0.9% per day (95% CI -1.4% to -0.4%; P < 0.001). We did not observe a statistically significant difference in the mean daily case growth rate before versus after implementation of statewide restrictions on internal movement (0.1% per day; 95% CI -0.04% to 0.3%; P = 0.14), but there is substantial difficulty in disentangling the unique associations with statewide restrictions on internal movement from the unique associations with the first social distancing measures. Beginning 7 days after social distancing, the COVID-19-attributed mortality growth rate decreased by 2.0% per day (95% CI -3.0% to -0.9%; P < 0.001). Our analysis is susceptible to potential bias resulting from the aggregate nature of the ecological data, potential confounding by contemporaneous changes (e.g., increases in testing), and potential underestimation of social distancing due to spillover effects from neighboring states.ConclusionsStatewide social distancing measures were associated with a decrease in the COVID-19 case growth rate that was statistically significant. Statewide social distancing measures were also associated with a decrease in the COVID-19-attributed mortality growth rate beginning 7 days after implementation, although this decrease was no longer statistically significant by 10 days.