Search

To investigate the association between individual and community-level measures of HIV stigma and HIV incidence within the 21 communities participating in the HPTN (071) PopART trial in Zambia and South Africa.Secondary analysis of data from a population-based cohort followed-up over 36 months between 2013 and 2018. The outcome was rate of incident HIV infection among individuals who were HIV negative at cohort entry. Individual-level exposures, measured in a random sample of all participants, were: (1) perception of stigma in the community, (2) perception of stigma in health settings and (3) fear and judgement towards people living with HIV. Individual-level analyses were conducted with adjusted, individual-level Poisson regression. Community-level HIV stigma exposures drew on data reported by people living with HIV, health workers and community members. We used linear regression to explore the association between HIV stigma and community-level HIV incidence.Among 8172 individuals who were HIV negative and answered individual-level stigma questions at enrolment to the cohort, there was no evidence of a statistically significant association between any domain of HIV stigma and risk of incident HIV infection. Among the full cohort of 26,110 individuals among whom HIV incidence was measured, there was no evidence that community-level HIV incidence was associated with any domain of HIV stigma.HIV stigma is often cited as a barrier to the effectiveness of HIV prevention programming. However, in the setting for the HPTN 071 "PopART trial," measured stigma alone was not associated with the risk of HIV infection.

The global expansion of HIV testing, prevention and treatment services is necessary to achieve HIV epidemic control and promote individual and population health benefits for people living with HIV (PLHIV) in sub-Saharan Africa. Community-based health workers (CHWs) could play a key role in supporting implementation at scale. In the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial in Zambia and South Africa, a cadre of 737 study-specific CHWs, working closely with government-employed CHW, were deployed to deliver a ‘universal’ door-to-door HIV prevention package, including an annual offer of HIV testing and referral services for all households in 14 study communities. We conducted a process evaluation using qualitative and quantitative data collected during the trial (2013–2018) to document the implementation of the CHW intervention in practice. We focused on the recruitment, retention, training and support of CHWs, as they delivered study-specific services. We then used these descriptions to: (i) analyse the fidelity to design of the delivery of the intervention package, and (ii) suggest key insights for the transferability of the intervention to other settings. The data included baseline quantitative data collected with the study-specific CHWs (2014–2018); and qualitative data from key informant interviews with study management (n = 91), observations of CHW training events (n = 12) and annual observations of and group discussions (GD) with intervention staff (n = 68). We show that it was feasible for newly recruited CHWs to implement the PopART intervention with good fidelity, supporting the interpretation of the trial outcome findings. This was despite some challenges in managing service quality and CHW retention in the early years of the programme. We suggest that by prioritizing the adoption of key elements of the in-home HIV services delivery intervention model—including training, emotional support to workers, monitoring and appropriate remuneration for CHWs—these services could be successfully transferred to new settings.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a combination HIV prevention intervention including universal testing and treatment (UTT) on HIV stigma among people living with HIV, and among community members and health workers not living with HIV. DESIGN: This HIV stigma study was nested in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial, a three-arm cluster randomised trial conducted between 2013 and 2018 in 21 urban/peri-urban communities (12 in Zambia and nine in South Africa). METHODS: Using an adjusted two-stage cluster-level analysis, controlling for baseline imbalances, we compared multiple domains of stigma between the trial arms at 36 months. Different domains of stigma were measured among three cohorts recruited across all study communities: 4178 randomly sampled adults aged 18-44 who were living with HIV, and 3487 randomly sampled adults and 1224 health workers who did not self-report living with HIV. RESULTS: Prevalence of any stigma reported by people living with HIV at 36 months was 20.2% in arm A, 26.1% in arm B, and 19.1% in arm C (adjusted prevalence ratio, A vs. C 1.01 95% CI 0.49-2.08, B vs. C 1.34 95% CI 0.65-2.75). There were no significant differences between arms in any other measures of stigma across all three cohorts. All measures of stigma reduced over time (0.2--4.1% reduction between rounds) with most reductions statistically significant. CONCLUSION: We found little evidence that UTT either increased or decreased HIV stigma measured among people living with HIV, or among community members or health workers not living with HIV. Stigma reduced over time, but slowly. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV NUMBER: NCT01900977.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., Background: The impact of HIV stigma on viral suppression among people living with HIV (PLHIV) is not well characterized. Setting: Twenty-one communities in Zambia and South Africa, nested within the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial. Methods: We analyzed data on viral suppression (

Introduction Integrating standardized measures of HIV stigma and discrimination into research studies of emerging HIV prevention approaches could enhance uptake and retention of these approaches, and care and treatment for people living with HIV (PLHIV), by informing stigma mitigation strategies. We sought to develop a succinct set of measures to capture key domains of stigma for use in research on HIV prevention technologies. Methods From 2013 to 2015, we collected baseline data on HIV stigma from three populations (PLHIV (N = 4053), community members (N = 5782) and health workers (N = 1560)) in 21 study communities in South Africa and Zambia participating in the HPTN 071 (PopART) cluster‐randomized trial. Forty questions were adapted from a harmonized set of measures developed in a consultative, global process. Informed by theory and factor analysis, we developed seven scales, with values ranging from 0 to 3, based on a 4‐point agreement Likert, and calculated means to assess different aspects of stigma. Higher means reflected more stigma. We developed two measures capturing percentages of PLHIV who reported experiencing any stigma in communities or healthcare settings in the past 12 months. We validated our measures by examining reliability using Cronbach's alpha and comparing the distribution of responses across characteristics previously associated with HIV stigma. Results Thirty‐five questions ultimately contributed to seven scales and two experience measures. All scales demonstrated acceptable to very good internal consistency. Among PLHIV, a scale captured internalized stigma, and experience measures demonstrated that 22.0% of PLHIV experienced stigma in the community and 7.1% in healthcare settings. Three scales for community members assessed fear and judgement, perceived stigma in the community and perceived stigma in healthcare settings. Similarly, health worker scales assessed fear and judgement, perceived stigma in the community and perceived co‐worker stigma in healthcare settings. A higher proportion of community members and health workers reported perceived stigma than the proportion of PLHIV who reported experiences of stigma. Conclusions We developed novel, valid measures that allowed for triangulation of HIV stigma across three populations in a large‐scale study. Such comparisons will illuminate how stigma influences and is influenced by programmatic changes to HIV service delivery over time.