Universal HIV testing and treatment and HIV stigma reduction: a comparative thematic analysis of qualitative data from the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial in South Africa and Zambia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite continued development of effective HIV treatment, expanded access to care and advances in prevention modalities, HIV-related stigma persists. We examine how, in the context of a universal HIV-testing and treatment trial in South Africa and Zambia, increased availability of HIV services influenced conceptualisations of HIV. Using qualitative data, we explore people's stigma-related experiences of living in 'intervention' and 'control' study communities. We conducted exploratory data analysis from a qualitative cohort of 150 households in 13 study communities, collected between 2016 and 2018. We found that increased availability of HIV-testing services influenced conceptualisations of HIV as normative (non-exceptional) and the visibility of people living with HIV (PLHIV) in household and community spaces impacted opportunities for stigma. There was a shift in community narratives towards individual responsibility to take up (assumingly) widely available service - for PLHIV to take care of their own health and to prevent onward transmission. Based on empirical data, we show that, despite a growing acceptance of HIV-related testing services, anticipated stigma persists through the mechanism of shifting responsibilisation. To mitigate the responsibilisation of PLHIV, heath implementers need to adapt anti-stigma messaging and especially focus on anticipated stigma.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".