Manuela Colombini1, Fiona Scorgie2, Anne Stangl3, Sheila Harvey4,5, Lethabo Ramskin2, Nomhle Khoza2, Emma Mashauri5, Deborah Baron2, Shelley Lees4, Saidi Kapiga5,6, Charlotte Watts4, Sinead Delany-Moretlwe2. 1. Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. Manuela.colombini@lshtm.ac.uk. 2. Wits Reproductive Health Institute, Witwatersrand University, Johannesburg, South Africa. 3. International Center for Research on Women, Washington, DC, USA. 4. Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK. 5. Mwanza Intervention Trials Unit, Mwanza, Tanzania. 6. Department of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gender-based violence (GBV) undermines HIV prevention and treatment cascades, particularly among women who report partner violence. Screening for violence during HIV testing, and prior to offering pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to HIV uninfected women, provides an opportunity to identify those at heightened HIV risk and greater potential for non-adherence or early discontinuation of PrEP. The paper describes our experience with offering integrated GBV screening and referral as part of HIV counselling and testing. This component was implemented within EMPOWER, a demonstration project offering combination HIV prevention, including daily oral PrEP, to young women in South Africa and Tanzania. METHODS: Between February 2017 and March 2018, a process evaluation was conducted to explore views, experiences and practices of stakeholders (study participants and study clinical staff) during implementation of the GBV screening component. This article assesses the feasibility and acceptability of the approach from multiple stakeholder perspectives, drawing on counselling session observations (n = 10), in-depth interviews with participants aged 16-24 (n = 39) and clinical staff (n = 13), and notes from debriefings with counsellors. Study process data were also collected (e.g. number of women screened and referred). Following a thematic inductive approach, qualitative data were analysed using qualitative software (NVivo 11). RESULTS: Findings show that 31% of young women screened positive for GBV and only 10% requested referrals. Overall, study participants accessing PrEP were amenable to being asked about violence during HIV risk assessment, as this offered the opportunity to find emotional relief and seek help, although a few found this traumatic. In both sites, the sensitive and empathetic approach of the staff helped mitigate distress of GBV disclosure. In general, the delivery of GBV screening in HCT proved to be feasible, provided that the basic principles of confidentiality, staff empathy, and absence of judgment were observed. However, uptake of linkage to further care remained low in both sites. CONCLUSION: Most stakeholders found GBV screening acceptable and feasible. Key principles that should be in place for young women to be asked safely about GBV during HIV counselling and testing included respect for confidentiality, a youth-friendly and non-judgmental environment, and a functioning referral network.
BACKGROUND: Gender-based violence (GBV) undermines HIV prevention and treatment cascades, particularly among women who report partner violence. Screening for violence during HIV testing, and prior to offering pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to HIV uninfected women, provides an opportunity to identify those at heightened HIV risk and greater potential for non-adherence or early discontinuation of PrEP. The paper describes our experience with offering integrated GBV screening and referral as part of HIV counselling and testing. This component was implemented within EMPOWER, a demonstration project offering combination HIV prevention, including daily oral PrEP, to young women in South Africa and Tanzania. METHODS: Between February 2017 and March 2018, a process evaluation was conducted to explore views, experiences and practices of stakeholders (study participants and study clinical staff) during implementation of the GBV screening component. This article assesses the feasibility and acceptability of the approach from multiple stakeholder perspectives, drawing on counselling session observations (n = 10), in-depth interviews with participants aged 16-24 (n = 39) and clinical staff (n = 13), and notes from debriefings with counsellors. Study process data were also collected (e.g. number of women screened and referred). Following a thematic inductive approach, qualitative data were analysed using qualitative software (NVivo 11). RESULTS: Findings show that 31% of young women screened positive for GBV and only 10% requested referrals. Overall, study participants accessing PrEP were amenable to being asked about violence during HIV risk assessment, as this offered the opportunity to find emotional relief and seek help, although a few found this traumatic. In both sites, the sensitive and empathetic approach of the staff helped mitigate distress of GBV disclosure. In general, the delivery of GBV screening in HCT proved to be feasible, provided that the basic principles of confidentiality, staff empathy, and absence of judgment were observed. However, uptake of linkage to further care remained low in both sites. CONCLUSION: Most stakeholders found GBV screening acceptable and feasible. Key principles that should be in place for young women to be asked safely about GBV during HIV counselling and testing included respect for confidentiality, a youth-friendly and non-judgmental environment, and a functioning referral network.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adolescent girls and young women; Gender-based violence; HIV prevention; PrEP; Screening; Service integration
Authors: Natasha Larke; Bernadette Cleophas-Mazige; Mary L Plummer; Angela I N Obasi; Merdard Rwakatare; Jim Todd; John Changalucha; Helen A Weiss; Richard J Hayes; David A Ross Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Ali H Mokdad; Mohammad Hossein Forouzanfar; Farah Daoud; Arwa A Mokdad; Charbel El Bcheraoui; Maziar Moradi-Lakeh; Hmwe Hmwe Kyu; Ryan M Barber; Joseph Wagner; Kelly Cercy; Hannah Kravitz; Megan Coggeshall; Adrienne Chew; Kevin F O'Rourke; Caitlyn Steiner; Marwa Tuffaha; Raghid Charara; Essam Abdullah Al-Ghamdi; Yaser Adi; Rima A Afifi; Hanan Alahmadi; Fadia AlBuhairan; Nicholas Allen; Mohammad AlMazroa; Abdulwahab A Al-Nehmi; Zulfa AlRayess; Monika Arora; Peter Azzopardi; Carmen Barroso; Mohammed Basulaiman; Zulfiqar A Bhutta; Chris Bonell; Cecilia Breinbauer; Louisa Degenhardt; Donna Denno; Jing Fang; Adesegun Fatusi; Andrea B Feigl; Ritsuko Kakuma; Nadim Karam; Elissa Kennedy; Tawfik A M Khoja; Fadi Maalouf; Carla Makhlouf Obermeyer; Amitabh Mattoo; Terry McGovern; Ziad A Memish; George A Mensah; Vikram Patel; Suzanne Petroni; Nicola Reavley; Diego Rios Zertuche; Mohammad Saeedi; John Santelli; Susan M Sawyer; Fred Ssewamala; Kikelomo Taiwo; Muhammad Tantawy; Russell M Viner; Jane Waldfogel; Maria Paola Zuñiga; Mohsen Naghavi; Haidong Wang; Theo Vos; Alan D Lopez; Abdullah A Al Rabeeah; George C Patton; Christopher J L Murray Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rachel King; David Katuntu; Julie Lifshay; Laura Packel; Richard Batamwita; Sylvia Nakayiwa; Betty Abang; Frances Babirye; Pille Lindkvist; Eva Johansson; Jonathan Mermin; Rebecca Bunnell Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2007-09-08
Authors: Susan Vorkoper; Kadija M Tahlil; Nadia A Sam-Agudu; Joseph D Tucker; Alicia A Livinski; Frances Fernando; Rachel Sturke Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2022-08-10
Authors: Danielle Giovenco; Audrey Pettifor; Kimberly A Powers; Lisa Hightow-Weidman; Brian W Pence; Connie Celum; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe; Sybil Hosek; Deborah Donnell; Peter L Anderson; Nyaradzo Mgodi; Linda-Gail Bekker Journal: AIDS Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 4.632