Intersectionality and health-related stigma: insights from experiences of people living with stigmatized health conditions in Indonesia.

BACKGROUND: Health-related stigma is a complex phenomenon, the experience of which intersects with those of other adversities arising from a diversity of social inequalities and oppressive identities like gender, sexuality, and poverty - a concept called "intersectionality". Understanding this intersectionality between health-related stigma and other forms of social marginalization can provide a fuller and more comprehensive picture of stigma associated with health conditions. The main objective of this paper is to build upon the concept of intersectionality in health-related stigma by exploring the convergence of experiences of stigma and other adversities across the intersections of health and other forms of social oppressions among people living with stigmatized health conditions in Indonesia. METHODS: This qualitative study interviewed 40 people affected by either of four stigmatizing health conditions (HIV, leprosy, schizophrenia, and diabetes) in Jakarta and West Java, Indonesia between March and June 2018. Data was analyzed thematically using an integrative inductive-deductive framework approach. RESULTS: The main intersectional inequalities identified by the participants were gender and socioeconomic status (n = 21), followed by religion (n = 13), age (n = 11), co-morbidity (n = 9), disability (n = 6), and sexuality (n = 4). Based on these inequalities/identities, the participants reported of experiencing oppression because of prevailing social norms, systems, and policies (macro-level), exclusion and discrimination from societal actors (meso-level), and self-shame and stigma (micro-level). While religion and age posed adversities that negatively affected participants in macro and meso levels, they helped mitigate the negative experiences of stigma in micro level by improving self-acceptance and self-confidence. CONCLUSION: This study uncovered how the experience of health-related stigma intersects with other oppressions originating from the various social inequalities in an individual's life. The findings highlight the importance of acknowledging and understanding the multi-dimensional aspect of lives of people living with stigmatized health conditions, and warrant integrated multi-level and cross-cutting stigma reduction interventions to address the intersectional oppressions they experience.

Combining peer-led self-care interventions for people affected by leprosy or diabetes in leprosy-endemic countries. What do health care professionals think?

INTRODUCTION: Leprosy is slowly decreasing in incidence whereas diabetes is a growing health concern. Despite differences in aetiology, both diseases may lead to peripheral neuropathy and subsequent injuries and permanent impairments. There are also indications of similarities in psychosocial consequences. Prevention of Disability (POD) and self-management are often recommended for both diseases. This led to the idea of exploring the feasibility of combined peer-led self-care interventions for people with these disorders. OBJECTIVE: To explore the opinions of health care professionals about combining peer-led self-care interventions for people affected by leprosy or diabetes in leprosy-endemic countries. METHOD: An exploratory study was conducted to collect quantitative data by means of an e-questionnaire and qualitative data through in-depth semi-structured interviews with key informants. RESULTS: In total, 227 respondents answered the e-questionnaire and 22 in-depth interviews were conducted. Resemblances in physical complications between leprosy and diabetes were confirmed by the respondents. Psychosocial similarities included limitations in daily activity and in social participation, but stigma in leprosy was thought to be an important difference. Considerable overlap in current practices was found, mainly in patient education in POD, skin assessment and skin care, and the recommendation to use protective footwear. Knowledge exchange between leprosy and diabetes specialists is limited, although combined interventions were reported. The majority of respondents think that combined interventions are 'possible' (33.3%) or 'possible and promising' (30.8%). Professionals working with both diseases are more positive than those working with leprosy or diabetes only. The greatest barriers for combined interventions are perceived to be leprosy-related stigma, differences in underlying socio-economic status, attitudes of health care professionals and the current organization of health care systems. CONCLUSIONS: Responses indicate perspectives for combined interventions for the prevention of disabilities. For this, it is essential to intensify knowledge exchange between leprosy and diabetes professionals, to overcome barriers and to secure government policy support. Opportunities should be assessed in a situation-specific way.