5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Recommendations for Improving Oral Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Implementation and Social Marketing in Ugandan Fisherfolk Communities: A Qualitative Exploration

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: HIV is hyperendemic among fisherfolk in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially around Lake Victoria, Uganda. Purpose/Research Design: We conducted cross-sectional semi-structured interviews about oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation with 35 Ugandan fisherfolk (15 women, 20 men) and 10 key stakeholders (healthcare providers, policymakers, community leaders). We used a directed content analysis approach based on implementation science and social marketing frameworks. Results: Participants showed high acceptability for PrEP. Anticipated barriers among fisherfolk included stigma (due to similar medications/packaging as HIV treatment); misconceptions; mobility, competing needs, poverty, and partner conflict. Anticipated provider barriers included insufficient staffing and travel support. Recommendations included: change PrEP packaging; integrate PrEP with other services; decrease PrEP refill frequency; give transportation resources to providers; train more healthcare workers to provide PrEP to fisherfolk; and use positively framed messages to promote PrEP. Conclusions: Results can inform policymakers and healthcare organizations on how to overcome barriers to PrEP scale-up in most at-risk populations with poor healthcare access.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

          Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework

            Background It is increasingly acknowledged that ‘acceptability’ should be considered when designing, evaluating and implementing healthcare interventions. However, the published literature offers little guidance on how to define or assess acceptability. The purpose of this study was to develop a multi-construct theoretical framework of acceptability of healthcare interventions that can be applied to assess prospective (i.e. anticipated) and retrospective (i.e. experienced) acceptability from the perspective of intervention delivers and recipients. Methods Two methods were used to select the component constructs of acceptability. 1) An overview of reviews was conducted to identify systematic reviews that claim to define, theorise or measure acceptability of healthcare interventions. 2) Principles of inductive and deductive reasoning were applied to theorise the concept of acceptability and develop a theoretical framework. Steps included (1) defining acceptability; (2) describing its properties and scope and (3) identifying component constructs and empirical indicators. Results From the 43 reviews included in the overview, none explicitly theorised or defined acceptability. Measures used to assess acceptability focused on behaviour (e.g. dropout rates) (23 reviews), affect (i.e. feelings) (5 reviews), cognition (i.e. perceptions) (7 reviews) or a combination of these (8 reviews). From the methods described above we propose a definition: Acceptability is a multi-faceted construct that reflects the extent to which people delivering or receiving a healthcare intervention consider it to be appropriate, based on anticipated or experienced cognitive and emotional responses to the intervention. The theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) consists of seven component constructs: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. Conclusion Despite frequent claims that healthcare interventions have assessed acceptability, it is evident that acceptability research could be more robust. The proposed definition of acceptability and the TFA can inform assessment tools and evaluations of the acceptability of new or existing interventions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy.

              Antiretroviral therapy that reduces viral replication could limit the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in serodiscordant couples. In nine countries, we enrolled 1763 couples in which one partner was HIV-1-positive and the other was HIV-1-negative; 54% of the subjects were from Africa, and 50% of infected partners were men. HIV-1-infected subjects with CD4 counts between 350 and 550 cells per cubic millimeter were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive antiretroviral therapy either immediately (early therapy) or after a decline in the CD4 count or the onset of HIV-1-related symptoms (delayed therapy). The primary prevention end point was linked HIV-1 transmission in HIV-1-negative partners. The primary clinical end point was the earliest occurrence of pulmonary tuberculosis, severe bacterial infection, a World Health Organization stage 4 event, or death. As of February 21, 2011, a total of 39 HIV-1 transmissions were observed (incidence rate, 1.2 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 1.7); of these, 28 were virologically linked to the infected partner (incidence rate, 0.9 per 100 person-years, 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.3). Of the 28 linked transmissions, only 1 occurred in the early-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.27; P<0.001). Subjects receiving early therapy had fewer treatment end points (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.88; P=0.01). The early initiation of antiretroviral therapy reduced rates of sexual transmission of HIV-1 and clinical events, indicating both personal and public health benefits from such therapy. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; HPTN 052 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00074581.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Community Health Equity Research & Policy
                Community Health Equity Research & Policy
                SAGE Publications
                2752-535X
                2752-5368
                October 04 2022
                : 0272684X2211136
                Affiliations
                [1 ]RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA
                [2 ]Mildmay Uganda, Kampala, Uganda
                [3 ]Ministry of Health, Republic of Uganda, Kampala, Uganda
                [4 ]Makerere University School of Public Health, Kampala, Uganda
                Article
                10.1177/0272684X221113608
                10070557
                36194425
                20bd476f-3f93-4ac4-86cf-22a198ccf35f
                © 2022

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article