Gede Benny Setia Wirawan1, Pande Putu Januraga2, I Gusti Agung Agus Mahendra1, Ngakan Putu Anom Harjana1, Tiara Mahatmi3, Lanny Luhukay4, Bharat Bhushan Rewari5, Cheryl Johnson6, David A Katz7. 1. Center for Public Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Udayana University, Bali, Denpasar, Indonesia. 2. Center for Public Health Innovation, Faculty of Medicine, Udayana University, Bali, Denpasar, Indonesia. januraga@unud.ac.id. 3. World Health Organization Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. 4. Indonesian Ministry of Health, Jakarta, Indonesia. 5. South-east Asia Regional Office, World Health Organization, New Delhi, India. 6. Global HIV, Hepatitis and STI Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 7. Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Voluntary assisted partner notification (aPN) services are effective in increasing access to and uptake of HIV testing among partners of people with HIV. Following recommendations by the World Health Organization in 2016, Indonesia evaluated various approaches to aPN. We present the lessons learned from formative operational research undertaken to understand provider and patient perspectives on aPN from three demonstration sites in cities with a high HIV burden. METHODS: We conducted a formative qualitative study in three cities: Jakarta, Semarang, and Denpasar between September and October 2019. We conducted six focus group discussions (FGDs) (n = 44 participants) among health-care providers, people living with HIV and the general population. We explored participant preferences and concerns about how aPN should be delivered, including the methods of and messaging for contacting partners. All FGDs were conducted in the Indonesian language. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: aPN was acceptable across different participant populations, although with caveats. Some differences were observed between the general population, providers and people living with HIV. People living with HIV were mainly concerned with confidentiality of the procedure and preferred the use of telecommunication and messages that avoid explicit mention of HIV exposure. Providers preferred similar approaches but for different reasons, being concerned mainly with self-efficacy and security. There was consensus regarding dual referral models. The use of phone calls and short messages were preferred as these are perceived to minimize negative reactions and stigma, protect client confidentiality and are suitable in the current legal situation. The general population was mainly concerned with effectiveness and prefer direct provider-led approaches, such as preferring in-person meeting with explicit notification of potential HIV exposure. CONCLUSIONS: We found consensus among stakeholders on acceptance of aPN, especially dual referral methods. Development and implementation of aPN protocols should also consider clients' individual situations and concerns regarding safeguarding of confidentiality, and offer a range of options to accommodate all stakeholders involved.
BACKGROUND: Voluntary assisted partner notification (aPN) services are effective in increasing access to and uptake of HIV testing among partners of people with HIV. Following recommendations by the World Health Organization in 2016, Indonesia evaluated various approaches to aPN. We present the lessons learned from formative operational research undertaken to understand provider and patient perspectives on aPN from three demonstration sites in cities with a high HIV burden. METHODS: We conducted a formative qualitative study in three cities: Jakarta, Semarang, and Denpasar between September and October 2019. We conducted six focus group discussions (FGDs) (n = 44 participants) among health-care providers, people living with HIV and the general population. We explored participant preferences and concerns about how aPN should be delivered, including the methods of and messaging for contacting partners. All FGDs were conducted in the Indonesian language. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS:aPN was acceptable across different participant populations, although with caveats. Some differences were observed between the general population, providers and people living with HIV. People living with HIV were mainly concerned with confidentiality of the procedure and preferred the use of telecommunication and messages that avoid explicit mention of HIV exposure. Providers preferred similar approaches but for different reasons, being concerned mainly with self-efficacy and security. There was consensus regarding dual referral models. The use of phone calls and short messages were preferred as these are perceived to minimize negative reactions and stigma, protect client confidentiality and are suitable in the current legal situation. The general population was mainly concerned with effectiveness and prefer direct provider-led approaches, such as preferring in-person meeting with explicit notification of potential HIV exposure. CONCLUSIONS: We found consensus among stakeholders on acceptance of aPN, especially dual referral methods. Development and implementation of aPN protocols should also consider clients' individual situations and concerns regarding safeguarding of confidentiality, and offer a range of options to accommodate all stakeholders involved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Assisted partner notification; HIV partner services; HIV/AIDS; Index testing; Indonesia; Provider-assisted referral
Authors: A Apoola; K W Radcliffe; S Das; V Robshaw; G Gilleran; B S Kumari; M Boothby; R Rajakumar Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Seth C Kalichman; Catherine Mathews; Moira Kalichman; Mark N Lurie; Sarah Dewing Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: George Ayala; Mahri Bahati; Elie Balan; Judy Chang; Tri D Do; Najeeb A Fokeerbux; Abdulwahid Hassan; Julien Kerboghossian; Midnight Poonkasetwatana; Jorge Saavedra; Andrew Spieldenner; Ruth M Thomas; Johnny Tohme; Jeffrey Walimba Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: K Selvaraj; A M V Kumar; S Chawla; K S Shringarpure; P Thekkur; C Palanivel; P B Verma; A N Shah; K N Pandya; G Roy; Z Singh; B B Rewari; A R Dongre Journal: Public Health Action Date: 2017-03-21
Authors: Pius M Tih; Francois Temgbait Chimoun; Eveline Mboh Khan; Emmanuel Nshom; Winifred Nambu; Ray Shields; Beatrice M Wamuti; Matthew R Golden; Thomas Welty Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Gede Benny Setia Wirawan; Brigitta Dhyah K Wardhani; Putu Erma Pradnyani; Afriana Nurhalina; Nurjannah Sulaiman; Evi Sukmaningrum; Luh Putu Lila Wulandari; Pande Putu Januraga Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 3.390