Combating HIV stigma in low- and middle-income healthcare settings: a scoping review.

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.

Pay-it-forward gonorrhoea and chlamydia testing among men who have sex with men in China: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: WHO recommends that men who have sex with men (MSM) receive gonorrhoea and chlamydia testing, but many evidence-based preventive services are unaffordable. The pay-it-forward strategy offers an individual a gift (eg, a test for sexually transmitted diseases) and then asks whether they would like to give a gift (eg, a future test) to another person. This study examined the effectiveness of a pay-it-forward programme to increase gonorrhoea and chlamydia testing among MSM in China. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled superiority trial at three HIV testing sites run by MSM community-based organisations in Guangzhou and Beijing, China. We included MSM aged 16 years or older who were seeking HIV testing and met indications for gonorrhoea and chlamydia testing. Restricted randomisation was done using computer-generated permuted blocks. 30 groups were randomised into three arms (1:1:1): a pay-it-forward arm in which men were offered free gonorrhoea and chlamydia testing and then asked whether they would like to donate for testing of prospective participants, a pay-what-you-want arm in which men were offered free testing and given the option to pay any desired amount for the test, and a standard-of-care arm in which testing was offered at ¥150 (US$22). There was no masking to arm assignment. The primary outcome was gonorrhoea and chlamydia test uptake ascertained by administrative records. We used generalised estimating equations to estimate intervention effects with one-sided 95% CIs and a prespecified superiority margin of 20%. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03741725. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2018, and Jan 19, 2019, 301 men were recruited and included in the analysis. 101 were randomly assigned to the pay-it-forward group, 100 to the pay-what-you-want group, and 100 to the standard-of-care group. Test uptake for gonorrhoea and chlamydia was 56% (57 of 101 participants) in the pay-it-forward arm, 46% (46 of 100 participants) in the pay-what-you-want arm, and 18% (18 of 100 participants) in the standard-of-care arm. The estimated difference in test uptake between the pay-it-forward and standard-of-care group was 38·4% (95% CI lower bound 28·4%). Among men in the pay-it-forward arm, 54 of 57 (95%) chose to donate to support testing for others. INTERPRETATION: The pay-it-forward strategy can increase gonorrhoea and chlamydia testing uptake among Chinese MSM and could be a useful tool for scaling up preventive services that carry a mandatory fee. FUNDING: US National Institute of Health; Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, sponsored by UNICEF, UNDP, World Bank, and WHO; the National Key Research and Development Program of China; Doris Duke Charitable Foundation; and Social Entrepreneurship to Spur Health.