RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Results from a difference-in-differences evaluation of health facility HIV and key population stigma-reduction interventions in Ghana
Nyblade, L., Addo, N. A., Atuahene, K., Alsoufi, N., Gyamera, E., Jacinthe, S., Leonard, M., Mingkwan, P. C., Stewart, C. A., Vormawor, R., & Kraemer, J. (2020). Results from a difference-in-differences evaluation of health facility HIV and key population stigma-reduction interventions in Ghana. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 23(4), Article e25483. https://doi.org/10.1002/jia2.25483
INTRODUCTION: Stigma undermines all aspects of a comprehensive HIV response, as reflected in recent global initiatives for stigma-reduction. Yet a commensurate response to systematically tackle stigma within country responses has not yet occurred, which may be due to the lack of sufficient evidence documenting evaluated stigma-reduction interventions. With stigma present in all life spheres, health facilities offer a logical starting point for developing and expanding stigma reduction interventions. This study evaluates the impact of a "total facility" stigma-reduction intervention on the drivers and manifestations of stigma and discrimination among health facility staff in Ghana.
METHODS: We evaluated the impact of a total facility stigma-reduction intervention by comparing five intervention to five comparable non-intervention health facilities in Ghana. Interventions began in September 2017. Data collection was in June 2017 and April 2018. The primary outcomes were composite indicators for three stigma drivers, self-reported stigmatizing avoidance behaviour, and observed discrimination. The principal intervention variable was whether the respondent worked at an intervention or comparison facility. We estimated intervention effects as differences-in-differences in each outcome, further adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).
RESULTS: We observed favourable intervention effects for all outcome domains except for stigmatizing attitudes. Preferring not to provide services to people living with HIV (PLHIV) or a key population member improved 11.1% more in intervention than comparison facility respondents (95% CI 3.2 to 19.0). Other significant improvements included knowledge of policies to protect against discrimination (difference-in-differences = 20.4%; 95% CI 12.7 to 28.0); belief that discrimination would be punished (11.2%; 95% CI 0.2 to 22.3); and knowledge of and belief in the adequacy of infection control policies (17.6%; 95% CI 8.3 to 26.9). Reported observation of stigma and discrimination incidents fell by 7.4 percentage points more among intervention than comparison facility respondents, though only marginally significant in the IPTW-adjusted model (p = 0.06). Respondents at intervention facilities were 19.0% (95% CI 12.2 to 25.8) more likely to report that staff behaviour towards PLHIV had improved over the last year than those at comparison facilities.
CONCLUSIONS: These results provide a foundation for scaling up health facility stigma-reduction within national HIV responses, though they should be accompanied by rigorous implementation science to ensure ongoing learning and adaptation for maximum effectiveness and long-term impact.
