| Literature DB >> 26880423 |
Bereket Yakob1,2, Busisiwe Purity Ncama3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to healthcare is an essential element of health development and a fundamental human right. While access to and acceptability of healthcare are complex concepts that interact with different socio-ecological factors (individual, community, institutional and policy), it is not known how these factors affect HIV care. This study investigated the impact of socio-ecological factors on access to and acceptability of HIV/AIDS treatment and care services (HATCS) in Wolaita Zone of Ethiopia.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26880423 PMCID: PMC4754879 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-2830-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Theoretical frameworks, unit of analysis and propositions of the study
| Ecological model for health promotion or Socio-ecological model (McLeroy et al (1988)) | Ecology of Human Development (Bronfenbrenner (1979)) | Social-ecological Model (Dahlberg and Krug (2002)) | Unit of analysis adapted and proposed | Propositions of the study |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intrapersonal (biology, knowledge, self-concept, attitudes, etc.) | Microsystem (individuals’ direct interaction with objects and related people) | Individual (biological and socio-demographic factors) | Client-based | Client-based factors influence the acceptability of HATCS |
| Interpersonal (interactions with other people and groups) | Mesosystem (interaction with groups and networks of people, i.e., peers and churches) | Relationships (interaction with one or more people) | ||
| Institutional (interaction with social institutions and structures) | Exosystem (a factor indirectly influencing a person due to its influence on a related person) | Community | Community-based factors influence access to and acceptability of HATCS | |
| Community (interactions between organizations) | Community (schools, workplaces, neighborhoods, and other organizations) | Institutional | Institutional factors influence access to and acceptability of HATCS | |
| Policy (laws, policies, standards, directives, implementation manuals, etc.) | Macrosystem (policy and societal factors i.e., culture) | Societal (policies, national economic performance, etc.) | Policy and standards | Policies and standards influence access to and acceptability of HATCS |
Sampling and sample size
| Inquiry type | Gender | # participants (Rural woredas with ART) | # participants (Rural woreda without ART) | # participants (Urban woredas with ART) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FGDs with PLHIV | M | 5 | 0 | 12 | 17 |
| (3 M & 3 F groups) | F | 7 | 0 | 12 | 19 |
| FGDs with community | M | 7 | 0 | 6 | 13 |
| (2 M & 3 F groups) | F | 7 | 6 | 6 | 19 |
| IDIs with defaulters | M | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| (stopped ART) | F | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 |
| IDIs with traditional | M | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| healers | F | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| KIIs with health | M | 2 | 3 | 5 | 10 |
| administrators | F | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| KIIs with care | M | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| providers | F | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| KIIs with community | M | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| level workers | F | 4 | 1 | 4 | 9 |
| KIIs with APLHIV | M | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| heads | F | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | M | 18 | 5 | 28 | 51 |
| F | 22 | 8 | 30 | 60 | |
| Total | 40 | 13 | 58 | 111 |
FGDs focus group discussions, IDIs individual in-depth interviews, KIIs key informant interviews, APLHIV association of people infected with HIV, ART antiretroviral therapy, M male, F female
Fig. 1Socio-ecological factors of access to and acceptability of HATCS; Figure Legend: Acceptability is an element of access. They interact with and are impacted by four socio-ecological factors such as client-based, community-based, health system-based and policy factors