Socio-economic status and health care utilization in rural Zimbabwe: findings from Project Accept (HPTN 043).

Zimbabwe's HIV epidemic is amongst the worst in the world, and disproportionately effects poorer rural areas. Access to almost all health services in Zimbabwe includes some form of cost to the client. In recent years, the socio-economic and employment status of many Zimbabweans has suffered a serious decline, creating additional barriers to HIV treatment and care. We aimed to assess the impact of i) socio-economic status (SES) and ii) employment status on the utilization of health services in rural Zimbabwe. Data were collected from a random probability sample household survey conducted in the Mutoko district of north-western Zimbabwe in 2005. We selected variables that described the economic status of the respondent, including: being paid to work, employment status, and SES by assets. Respondents were also asked about where they most often utilized healthcare when they or their family was sick or hurt. Of 2,874 respondents, all forms of healthcare tended to be utilized by those of high or medium-high SES (65%), including private (65%), church-based (61%), traditional (67%), and other providers (66%) (P=0.009). Most respondents of low SES utilized government providers (74%) (P=0.009). Seventy-one percent of respondents utilizing health services were employed. Government (71%), private (72%), church (71%), community-based (78%) and other (64%) health services tended to be utilized by employed respondents (P=0.000). Only traditional health services were equally utilized by unemployed respondents (50%) (P=0.000). A wide range of health providers are utilized in rural Zimbabwe. Utilization is strongly associated with SES and employment status, particularly for services with user fees, which may act as a barrier to HIV treatment and care access. Efforts to improve access in low-SES, high HIV-prevalence settings may benefit from the subsidization of the health care payment system, efforts to improve SES levels, political reform, and the involvement of traditional providers.

Health diplomacy and the adaptation of global health interventions to local needs in sub-Saharan Africa and Thailand: evaluating findings from Project Accept (HPTN 043).

BACKGROUND: Study-based global health interventions, especially those that are conducted on an international or multi-site basis, frequently require site-specific adaptations in order to (1) respond to socio-cultural differences in risk determinants, (2) to make interventions more relevant to target population needs, and (3) in recognition of 'global health diplomacy' issues. We report on the adaptations development, approval and implementation process from the Project Accept voluntary counseling and testing, community mobilization and post-test support services intervention. METHODS: We reviewed all relevant documentation collected during the study intervention period (e.g. monthly progress reports; bi-annual steering committee presentations) and conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with project directors and between 12 and 23 field staff at each study site in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Thailand and Tanzania during 2009. Respondents were asked to describe (1) the adaptations development and approval process and (2) the most successful site-specific adaptations from the perspective of facilitating intervention implementation. RESULTS: Across sites, proposed adaptations were identified by field staff and submitted to project directors for review on a formally planned basis. The cross-site intervention sub-committee then ensured fidelity to the study protocol before approval. Successfully-implemented adaptations included: intervention delivery adaptations (e.g. development of tailored counseling messages for immigrant labour groups in South Africa) political, environmental and infrastructural adaptations (e.g. use of local community centers as VCT venues in Zimbabwe); religious adaptations (e.g. dividing clients by gender in Muslim areas of Tanzania); economic adaptations (e.g. co-provision of income generating skills classes in Zimbabwe); epidemiological adaptations (e.g. provision of 'youth-friendly' services in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Tanzania), and social adaptations (e.g. modification of terminology to local dialects in Thailand: and adjustment of service delivery schedules to suit seasonal and daily work schedules across sites). CONCLUSIONS: Adaptation selection, development and approval during multi-site global health research studies should be a planned process that maintains fidelity to the study protocol. The successful implementation of appropriate site-specific adaptations may have important implications for intervention implementation, from both a service uptake and a global health diplomacy perspective.

A comparison of HIV stigma and discrimination in five international sites: the influence of care and treatment resources in high prevalence settings.

What accounts for differences in HIV stigma across different high prevalence settings? This study was designed to examine HIV stigma and discrimination in five high prevalence settings. Qualitative data were collected as part of the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Project Accept, a multi-site community randomized trial of community-based HIV voluntary counseling and testing. In-depth interviews were conducted with 655 participants in five sites, four in Sub-Saharan Africa and one in Southeast Asia. Interviews were conducted in the local languages by trained research staff. Data were audiotaped, transcribed, translated, coded and computerized for thematic data analysis. Participants described the stigmatizing attitudes and behaviors perpetuated against people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). The factors that contribute to HIV stigma and discrimination include fear of transmission, fear of suffering and death, and the burden of caring for PLWHA. The family, access to antiretrovirals and other resources, and self-protective behaviors of PLWHA protected against HIV stigma and discrimination. Variation in the availability of health and socioeconomic resources designed to mitigate the impact of HIV/AIDS helps explain differences in HIV stigma and discrimination across the settings. Increasing access to treatment and care resources may function to lower HIV stigma, however, providing services is not enough. We need effective strategies to reduce HIV stigma as treatment and care resources are scaled up in the settings that are most heavily impacted by the HIV epidemic.