Library

Instrument: China MSM stigma scale. Scoring: Included in article. Reliability or validity: Neilands TB, Steward WT, Choi K-H. Assessment of Stigma towards Homosexuality in China: A Study of Men Who Have Sex with Men. Arch Sex Behav. 2008 Oct;37(5):838-44.

What is the role of adherence in HIV treatment?

Why is adherence important?

The introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has extended and improved the quality of life for people living with HIV by reducing viral load, often to undetectable levels. However, the initial enthusiasm for these drugs has been dampened somewhat by the discovery that they require near perfect adherence to prevent virus replication and mutation. Studies have shown that 95% adherence is needed for viral suppression and that even a small decrease in adherence can greatly increase viral load.¹ If the virus is allowed to mutate into drug resistant strains, the treatment regimen can become ineffective, which reduces treatment options both for the non-adherent individuals and for any partners they may infect with these strains.²

How do you measure adherence?

Adherence is usually measured through self-report, pill count, electronic pill bottle caps (MEMS caps) and laboratory tests.³ Self-report through doctor’s office visits, questionnaires, structured interviews or diaries provides a simple and practical way of determining the self-perceived level of adherence.⁴ However, many individuals forget whether or not they took all their pills or may forget to complete their diary every day, and others may misrepresent their adherence in order to please the interviewer or clinician. Diaries may also not be feasible in settings where literacy is an issue. Pill count, particularly if unannounced, may provide a more accurate assessment of adherence rates than self-report. However, it is labor intensive and may be perceived as intrusive, especially if conducted during unannounced home visits. In such situations, in-clinic pill count may work better. MEMS caps record each time the bottle cap is removed by the patient. They have been found to correlate highly with concurrent viral load. However, they are expensive to use and may under-report adherence in patients who remove more than one dose at a time for using medi-sets pill organizers.⁶ All of these methods assume that patients have actually taken all missing pills. Laboratory tests, an indirect measure of adherence, can include viral load, CD4 counts, and blood levels of drug metabolites. These measures are less commonly used and very expensive. The results give no specific information about number of doses missed or adherence to medication schedule. They can also be influenced by other factors, such as the presence of drug resistant virus. Still, lab measures are often considered a useful adherence measure when combined with patient self-report and/or pill counts.

What are barriers?

Adhering to medications is hard to do. Most people have a problem finishing even a 5-day dose of antibiotics. Adherence is even more difficult when taking multiple drugs with different dosing requirements and severe, unpleasant side effects such as diarrhea, nerve damage and changes in body composition. Many people with HIV also have other complicating factors in their lives, including mental health issues, economic worries, lack of stable housing and alcohol or drug use, making it difficult to prioritize adherence. Adherence barriers are often divided into regimen-specific, social/psychological and institutional. Regimen-specific issues, such as the complexity of the treatment and taking many pills at different times, as well as side effects of the medication, can lead persons to miss doses.⁸ Scheduling demands such as work, travel and mealtimes can also be barriers. Social and psychological factors influence adherence. Mental health issues (such as depression or psychological distress), attitudes toward treatment and toward HIV, and support from health care workers, family and friends are key to adherence.⁹ Positive responses promote adherence and negative responses (lack of support, pessimism, etc.) can make it more difficult to adhere to treatment regimens. Institutional factors such as incarceration, clinic setting and access to reliable health care and medication affect adherence. Factors that promote adherence are pleasantness of the clinic, convenience of scheduling, confidentiality and availability of transportation and childcare.¹⁰

What’s being done?

Action Point, a storefront drop-in center in San Francisco, CA, offers adherence support for the urban poor with active drug or alcohol addiction. Located in an area of high rates of drug-related arrests and deaths, Action Point is open 6 days a week and operates on a harm reduction principle that encourages any positive change in health. The program offers adherence case management, prescription dispensing, nursing care, acupuncture and referrals to mental health and substance abuse services. After one month of enrollment, clients are offered a pager that receives e-mail messages to remind clients to take their medications. After six months, 61% of Action Point clients were taking HAART and 81% reported greater than 90% adherence.¹¹ In New York, patients who had not previously been on HAART were offered an individualized, three-module program on basic understanding of HIV, adherence and regimen options. Counselors discussed with each patient in detail potential adherence barriers, anticipated toxicities, pill burdens, dosing intervals and drug preferences. These were evaluated, reported to their provider and used to select an individualized regimen. Patients were given tools such as pillboxes, dose cards and beepers, if needed. They also provided intensive coaching and a dedicated phone line for patients. The program increased adherence and enhanced virologic response.¹² One promising new adherence strategy is directly observed therapy (DOT) for antiretrovirals, or DAART. Based on DOT for tuberculosis, DAART has been used in settings where patients have frequent interactions with health care workers, such as prisons and methadone maintenance clinics. Some complications of using DAART include the fact that medications need to be taken for a lifetime and dosing is usually more than once a day.¹³

What can we do?

Because adherence to HAART is a complex process, interventions to improve adherence are best designed to be multifaceted. Factors to consider include regimen complexity, side effects, patient-related factors and even the patient-health care worker relationship, each of which affects adherence to medications. Overall, the better that a regimen “fits” with a patient’s lifestyle, the greater adherence is likely to be.¹⁴ Health care workers can help increase adherence by: involving the patient in selecting a regimen with tolerable dosing schedules; preparing for and managing side effects; addressing and treating mental health and drug use issues; addressing concrete issues such as lack of transportation and homelessness; providing memory aids and anticipating treatment fatigue.¹⁵ Patients can help by: learning about HIV disease and anti-HIV drugs and what they do; finding treatment goals that are not HIV-related (seeing children grow up, remaining healthy and looking good); recruiting friends or family to act as adherence monitors and anticipating changes in routine such as travel.¹⁵

What needs to be done?

Everyone can be adherent with proper support. HIV+ persons may combat not just HIV disease, but drug addiction, homelessness and/or incarceration. Many of the barriers to adherence can be overcome with treatment and the right tools. For example, depression and other mental health problems that get in the way of optimal adherence are often treatable and should be diagnosed and treated. Because adherence is complex, it often requires an “adherence team.” Collaboration between the patient, physician, nurse, case manager, social worker, pharmacist, counselor and family or friends is essential.

Says who?

1. Paterson DL, Swindells S, Mohr J, et al. Adherence to protease inhibitor therapy and outcomes in patients with HIV infection. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2000;133:21-30. 2. Bangsberg DR, Deeks SD. Is average adherence to HIV antiretroviral therapy enough? Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2002;17:812-813. 3. Fogarty L, Roter D, Larson S et al. Patient adherence to HIV medication regimens: a review of published and abstract reports. Patient Education and Counseling. 2002;46:93-108. 4. Chesney MA, Ickovics JR, Chambers DB, et al. Self-reported adherence to antiretroviral medications among participants in HIV clinical trials: The AACTG Adherence Instruments. AIDS Care. 2000;12:255-266.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10928201/  5. Samet JH, Sullivan LM, Traphagen ET, et al. Measuring adherence among HIV-infected persons: is MEMS consummate technology? AIDS and Behavior. 2001;5:21-30. 6. Wendel CS, Mohler MJ, Kroesen K, et al. Barriers to use of electronic adherence monitoring in an HIV clinic. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 2001;35:1010-1015. 7. Ickovics JR, Meade CS. Adherence to HAART among patients with HIV: breakthroughs and barriers. AIDS Care. 2002;14:309-318. 8. Altice FL, Mostashari F, Friedland GH. Trust and acceptance of and adherence to antiretroviral therapy. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 2001;28:47-58. 9. Gordillo V, Del Amo J, Soriano V, et al. Sociodemographic and psychological variables influencing adherence to antiretroviral therapy. AIDS. 1999;13:1763-1769. 10. Ciccarone D, Bangsberg D. , Bamberger J, et al. HIV-Related hospitalization before and during participation in ‘Action Point’ an adherence case management program. Presented at the American Public Health Association Conference. 2003. 11. Bamberger JD, Unick J, Klein P et al. Helping the urban poor stay with antiretroviral HIV drug therapy. American Journal of Public Health. 2000;90:699-701. 12. Esch L, Hardy H, Wynn H, et al. Intensive adherence interventions improve virologic response to antiretroviral therapy (ART) in naive patients. Presented at the 8th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Chicago, IL. 2001. Abst #481. 13. Lucas GM, Flexner CW, Moore RD. Directly administered antiretroviral therapy in the treatment of HIV infection: benefit or burden? AIDS Patient Care and STDs. 2002;16:527-535. 14. Chesney MA, Malow RM. Adherence in Chronic Diseases: Lessons learned from HIV/AIDS. World Health Organization volume on Adherence in Chronic Diseases. in press 15. Bartlett JA. Addressing the challenges of adherence. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 2002;29:S2-S10. For information on how this affects prevention, please see Fact Sheet #27 “Do new HIV drugs affect HIV prevention?”

Prepared by Maria Ekstrand, Michael Crosby and Pamela DeCarlo, CAPS January 2003. Fact Sheet #47E Special thanks to the following reviewers of this Fact Sheet: Margaret Chesney, Linda Fogarty, Celia Friedrich, Jeanette Ickovics, James L. Sorensen.

Reproduction of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California San Franciso should be cited as the source of this information. For additional copies of this and other HIV Prevention Fact Sheets, please call the National Prevention Information Network at 800/458-5231. Comments and questions about this Fact Sheet may be e-mailed to [email protected]. © January 2003, University of California

Can Barrier Methods Help in HIV Prevention?

Why barrier methods?

Barrier methods are a relatively low-cost, accessible and important part of the pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD) prevention landscape. Barrier methods can be physical or chemical substances which prevent pregnancy and/or block the spread of STDs including HIV. They do not include hormonal contraceptive methods. People have successfully used contraceptive physical barriers for centuries.¹ Since the beginning of the HIV epidemic, the latex male condom has been the exclusive prevention tool. After two decades, there is a call to create a greater selection of barrier methods to combat HIV. Because HIV rates continue to increase among women and among men who have sex with men (MSM)^2,3, it is time to strengthen both current condom use programs and develop other barrier methods that optimize usage and choice in prevention.

What methods are available?

Currently, the male and female condoms are used for the prevention of HIV, STDs and unintended pregnancy.^4,5 The female condom, made of polyurethane plastic, is also used for receptive anal sex, but it was not designed for that purpose.⁶ The diaphragm, cervical cap and sponge are often used with a spermicide and block the cervix to prevent conception. Although studies have shown that these cervical blocking methods may also prevent certain STDs⁷, research has not been conducted to show that they prevent HIV. Dental dams are latex sheets used to provide a barrier in oral/anal and oral/vaginal sex. Spermicides (gels, creams, foams, or films that can be inserted into the vagina) are available for preventing pregnancy. One of the most widely used spermicides, Nonoxynol 9 (N-9), was recently tested for its ability to prevent HIV. The study of female sex workers in Thailand, South Africa, Cote d’Ivoire and Benin, randomly assigned women to use either a gel containing 52.5 mg of N-9 or a placebo, a vaginal moisturizer known as Replens. Preliminary results showed that there were more new HIV infections among the N-9 group than in the Replens group.⁸ In August, 2000, the CDC recommended against N-9 as a sole barrier method for HIV prevention.⁹ This study documented the harmful effects of a relatively large dose of N-9 on HIV infection. N-9 is commonly used in much smaller amounts as part of a condom lubricant. The impact of small doses of N-9 is not clear.

Why do we need alternatives to male condoms?

Male condoms are an extremely effective means of HIV, STD and pregnancy prevention. What most often limits condoms’ effectiveness is user failure rather than product failure. For example, users may fail to either put on a condom before genital contact or completely unroll the condom. In addition, some people fail to use a condom with every act of sexual intercourse. Some don’t use condoms because they reduce sexual sensation. For others, using condoms is seen as a barrier to intimacy. Male condom use requires male participation or negotiation. Female-controlled and receptive-partner-controlled options (such as female condoms or future microbicides) may be used without the participation or consent of the insertive partner. These methods are still detectable by sexual partners and partners can still refuse to use them. Female- and receptive-partner-controlled options can be used in situations where it is difficult to negotiate condom use such as in an abusive relationship, where there is economic disincentive to use a condom¹⁰ or where the insertive partner refuses to use a condom.⁵ Female-controlled HIV/STD prevention methods can be empowering¹¹ and are vital in an HIV epidemic that is increasingly infecting women, especially in developing countries. Finally, there is no barrier method that allows women to protect themselves from HIV and still get pregnant. Hopefully, a barrier method can be developed that separates the control of fertility from the prevention of STDs. This is an important consideration for many women.²

What are the drawbacks?

Barrier methods can provide protection against HIV and STDs, yet they are not an option for everyone. Although some methods are low-cost, others, such as the female condom, may have limited accessibility because of their cost. Most barrier methods require application before each act of sexual intercourse, making consistent use more difficult. Barrier methods may not protect against STDs that are transmitted via skin-to-skin contact such as herpes and human papilloma virus (HPV). Products may be messy or may require adequate cleaning and storage, which may not be available to some people. Some barrier methods are inserted into the vagina which requires comfort and familiarity with one’s body. Diaphragms and cervical caps require a health care worker to fit the devices. Further, individuals may have sensitivities to products’ chemicals or materials, such as latex allergies.¹ Barrier methods under development are addressing some of these limitations.

What about microbicides?

Microbicides are topically-applied chemical barriers that prevent HIV and/or STD transmission. They are not currently available, but are under development and being tested for efficacy as an alternative to current methods. Microbicides may come in the form of gels, creams, foams or films that can be inserted into the vagina or rectum. Development is currently focused on creating products which destroy or immobilize germs or viruses through a variety of mechanisms: breaking down the outer cell membranes of pathogens, enhancing normal vaginal defenses, providing a physical coating to the vagina or the rectum, inhibiting HIV from entering cells or preventing HIV replication if HIV does enter a cell.¹² Studies show that there is large potential demand for microbicides from women in the US and internationally.¹³ People are also willing to participate in efficacy trials, as studies in women and MSM have shown.^14,15

What’s being done?

Male condoms are currently the best comprehensive prevention method. Education and prevention campaigns must be continued to optimize condom usage while also searching for alternatives. HIV prevention efforts may be more effective among certain populations if condom use and HIV are addressed together with STD and unintended pregnancy prevention. Some STD and family planning clinics are encouraging condom use for both STDs and HIV prevention with great success.¹⁶ New physical barrier methods currently being researched include the disposable diaphragm, alternative types of cervical shields, caps and sponges and alternative types of condoms, both male and female. New materials are also under development, including various plastics and silicone rubber.² It is also important to examine the potential for adapting current products and testing existing products for HIV prevention. As these products are already FDA approved, the testing process is not as lengthy.

What are the next steps?

The development of alternative barrier methods must be a priority among private and public researchers alike. With over 50 microbicides in the research pipeline, one should be on the market by the year 2005. Advocacy groups have played a large role in increasing awareness and attention to microbicides and should continue advocating for accessible barrier methods.¹⁶ Although US government funding for microbicides has increased, in the 1998 fiscal year, microbicide-related research received only 1% of the National Institutes of Health AIDS research budget.¹⁷ There is no single solution to HIV and STD prevention. Prevention requires continued work on many levels, including increasing access to products, advocating for social change to eliminate unsafe situations that many people are in, and developing stronger prevention and treatment alternatives. Barrier methods are an integral part of these prevention alternatives and must be developed to their fullest potential to enhance health and prevent disease. Says who? 1. Feldblum P, Joanis C. Modern barrier methods: effective contraception and disease prevention. Family Health International. 1994. 2. The Population Council and International Family Health. The case for microbicides: a global priority . 2000. 3. Microbicides: a new weapon against HIV. American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR) Report. www.amfar.org . 4. Pinkerton SD, Abramson PR. Effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission . Social Science and Medicine. 1997;44:1303-1312. 5. Elias CJ, Coggins C. Female-controlled methods to prevent sexual transmission of HIV . AIDS. 1996;3:S43-51. 6. Gibson S, McFarland W, Wohlfeiler D, et al. Experiences of 100 men who have sex with men using the REALITY condom for anal sex . AIDS Education and Prevention. 1999;11:65-71. 7. Rosenberg MJ, Davidson AJ, Chen JH, et al. Barrier contraceptives and sexually transmitted diseases in women: a comparison of female-dependent methods and condoms . American Journal of Public Health. 1992; 82:669-674. 8. UNAIDS. Nonoxynol-9 not effective microbicide, trial shows https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12296062/  9. Gayle H. Dear Colleague. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. August 4, 2000. 10. Abdool Karim Q, Abdool Karim SS, Soldan K, et al. Reducing the risk of HIV infection among South African sex workers: socioeconomic and gender barriers . American Journal of Public Health. 1995;85:1521-1525. 11. Gollub EL. The female condom: tool for women’s empowerment . American Journal of Public Health. 2000;90:1377-1381. 12. Heise L. Topical microbicides: new hope for STI/HIV prevention. Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE). Takoma Park, MD. 13. Darroch JE, Frost JJ. Women’s interest in vaginal microbicides . Family Planning Perspectives. 1999;31:16-23 14. Hammet TR, Mason TH, Joanis CL, et al. Acceptability of formulations and application methods for vaginal microbicides among drug-involved women: results of product trials in three cities . Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 2000;27:119-126. 15. Gross M, Buchbinder SP, Celum C, et al. Rectal microbicides for U.S. gay men: are clinical trials needed? Are they feasible? Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 1998;39:55-61. 16. Kamb ML, Fishbein M, Douglas JM Jr, et al. Efficacy of risk-reduction counseling to prevent human immunodeficiency virus and sexually transmitted diseases: a randomized controlled trial. Project RESPECT Study Group . Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280:1161-1167. 17. Harrison PF. A new model for collaboration: the alliance for microbicide development . International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 1999;67:S39-S53. PREPARED BY Beth Freedman MPH, Nancy Padian PhD, CAPS, ARI December 2000. Fact Sheet #39E Reproduction of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies at the University of California San Franciso should be cited as the source of this information. For additional copies of this and other HIV Prevention Fact Sheets, please call the National Prevention Information Network at 800/458-5231. Comments and questions about this Fact Sheet may be e-mailed to [email protected]. © December 2000, University of California

¿Qué papel juegan las intervenciones estructurales en la prevención del VIH?

¿qué son las intervenciones estructurales?

La mayoría de las intervenciones de prevención del VIH tratan con los individuos de a uno por uno. Aún cuando muchas obtienen excelentes resultados, requieren mucho tiempo del personal y benefician a un número limitado de personas. Además, los beneficiarios de las intervenciones pueden sentirse presionados por parte de sus pares (que no reciben las intervenciones) para continuar participando en actividades de alto riesgo. Las intervenciones estructurales modifican o influencian el ambiente social, político o económico de manera que muchas personas se beneficien al mismo tiempo, quizás sin saberlo.¹ El término “intervenciones estructurales” significa muchas cosas. Las intervenciones estructurales incluyen programas que efectúan cambios en el campo jurídico (frecuentemente con presión o participación comunitaria) para facilitar las conductas seguras, como la venta libre de jeringas. También pueden enfocarse en el contexto social inmediato de la actividad sexual o inyección de drogas, modificando el entorno físico o normativo en el cual éstas suceden. Como ejemplo tenemos los prostíbulos tailandeses que exigen el uso de condones. Las intervenciones estructurales abarcan también los programas que buscan reducir o eliminar la desigualdad de ingresos, el racismo y otras inequidades y formas de opresión que crean vulnerabilidad al VIH/SIDA.

¿qué estructuras producen riesgo?

¿Cómo podemos identificar las estructuras o procesos sociales, políticos o económicos que deberán modificarse? Por lo general, lo hacemos estudiando la variación natural entre áreas o grupos, o los experimentos naturales en los cuales las condiciones cambian por motivos que no sean intervenciones relacionadas con el VIH. Los estudios de la variación natural (naturally-occurring variation) han demostrado que: 1) los países pobres son los más propensos a tener una epidemia generalizada del VIH; 2) los países con mayor desigualdad de ingresos tienen tasas altas del VIH; 3) las políticas importan: los lugares en donde las jeringas se pueden comprar legalmente tienen tasas menores de prevalencia y de incidencia del VIH entre los usuarios de drogas inyectables (UDI).² Los estudios sobre experimentos naturales indican que: 1) las transiciones sociales y políticas que de otra manera resultarían provechosas (ej. sucesos de los ’90 como la eliminación del sistema de apartheid en Sudáfrica y la terminación de la dictadura en Indonesia) fueron seguidas por grandes brotes del VIH; 2) las guerras aumentan el VIH, las enfermedades transmitidas sexualmente (ETS), la prostitución, la violación, la esclavitud sexual y el uso arriesgado de alcohol y drogas. También llevan a incrementos en el número de parejas sexuales y en la frecuencia de cambio de pareja sexual.³

¿por qué las intervenciones estructurales?

Muchas veces las intervenciones estructurales abarcan temas que parecen completamente ajenos VIH. Al pensar en la prevención del VIH, por lo general no se considera ni la eliminación de las desigualdades de ingresos la ni de la guerra. Pero estas realidades sociales, políticas y económicas ejercen una influencia enorme sobre las conductas de alto riesgo. Circunstancias sin relación directa con el VIH con frecuencia crean condiciones que promueven la propagación del mismo, haciendo de las intervenciones estructurales una necesidad imprescindible. Por ejemplo, en los años ‘70 el gobierno de la ciudad de Nueva York cerró las estaciones de bomberos en los barrios pobres habitados por grupos minoritarios. Como consecuencia, los incendios incontrolados destruyeron numerosos edificios, lo cual tuvo efectos muy traumáticos sobre la vida social de los residentes. El uso de drogas inyectables (y después de crack), el alcoholismo, el intercambio sexual, las pandillas y la desmoralización, se extendieron ampliamente. Posteriormente se presentaron brotes de ETS, VIH, tuberculosis y muchas otras enfermedades.⁴ Los gobiernos de los países ricos, incluyendo el de EE.UU., así como los bancos, las grandes empresas y otros integrantes de la élite económica, han perseguido agresivamente una política mundial organizada basada en recortes a la asistencia pública, privatización y competencia. Esto ha provocado el endeudamiento masivo de muchos países en vías de desarrollo, aumentado la desigualdad de ingresos y fomentado la formación de macrociudades en torno a enormes barrios de tugurios. Asimismo, debido a los “programas de ajuste estructural” impuestos por el Fondo Monetario Internacional, muchos países africanos, asiáticos y latinoamericanos se han visto obligados a recortar substancialmente los servicios de salud y educación. Estas políticas y programas han impedido en gran medida la provisión eficaz de intervenciones preventivas, terapias antirretrovirales y otros servicios médicos para las poblaciones infectadas.^5,6

ejemplos de intervenciones estructurales

En muchos países, gran número de trabajadores sexuales tiene VIH y otras ETS. Tailandia y la República Dominicana han instituido campañas de “condones al 100%” que exigen a los propietarios de los prostíbulos que hagan cumplir el uso de condones durante todo acto sexual. Las campañas buscan el apoyo de los dueños de prostíbulos, de los trabajadores sexuales y, en cuanto sea posible, de los clientes. Estos programas han limitado considerablemente la transmisión del VIH y de las ETS al modificar el contexto social inmediato de la conducta sexual para reducir los incidentes de sexo sin protección.^7,8 Las leyes de la mayoría de los estados de EE.UU. prohíben la posesión o distribución de jeringas, y muchos estados requieren receta médica para comprar jeringas. Consecuentemente, muchos UDI no llevan jeringas consigo por miedo a ser hostigados o detenidos por la policía. Para encontrar una solución jurídica a este problema, la legislatura de Connecticut aprobó la revocación parcial de las leyes sobre la receta de jeringas y la posesión de artículos para el uso de drogas. El resultado fue que los UDI redujeron en forma dramática su uso de jeringas compartidas y compraron más jeringas en farmacias. Después de la entrada en vigor de las nuevas leyes, el uso de jeringas compartidas bajó del 52% al 31%, la compra en farmacias subió del 19% al 78%, y la compra callejera disminuyó del 74% al 28%.⁹

¿podemos cambiar las políticas dañinas?

No es fácil evitar o terminar las guerras, ni las políticas de desarrollo urbano que perjudican a los pobres y a los grupos minoritarios, ni tampoco las políticas sexuales y de drogas que crean ambientes marginados. Sin embargo, los individuos y las comunidades pueden efectuar cambios. Los movimientos de las bases o comunitarios muchas veces son pasos iniciales necesarios para proceder a intervenciones estructurales más amplias. A veces, incluso la formación de dichos movimientos puede ser una intervención estructural. “Chico Chats,” un programa del Proyecto STOP AIDS en San Francisco, CA, ofreció talleres informativos sobre técnicas de organización y movilización comunitaria. Los participantes formaron un grupo activista llamado ¡Ya Basta! y diseñaron un video y un taller que examinaban el silencio en torno al sexo y la revelación de la homosexualidad en la familia latina. El video se está presentando en comunidades latinas en todo San Francisco.¹⁰ Organizaciones comunitarias e individuos de varios estados de EE.UU. con tasas altas de VIH entre los UDI, han creado programas de intercambio de jeringas (PIJ). Muchos PIJ han operado ilegalmente y sin apoyo. Las personas que trabajan en los PIJ y otros grupos de activistas políticos han colaborado con los oficiales públicos para invocar políticas “bajo estado de emergencia” que permitan la existencia legal de los PIJ en muchos estados.¹¹ Los trabajadores/as sexuales de Calcuta recibieron ayuda de las autoridades de salud pública para organizar un sindicato comunitario que les permite insistir a sus clientes sobre el uso de condón. La prevalencia del VIH entre los trabajadores/as sexuales de Calcuta se ha mantenido menor que en otras ciudades de la India.¹²

¿qué queda por hacer?

No se puede ignorar la relación que existe entre los factores estructurales como la marginalización económica, política y social y entre las conductas que ponen a las personas en riesgo de contraer o transmitir el VIH/SIDA y las ETS.^{13, 14} Tampoco podemos considerar a las conductas de alto riesgo como si operaran fuera de los contextos social, político y económico. Se necesita un diálogo mas profundo sobre estos temas entre los profesionales del VIH/SIDA. Una manera de reducir posibles consecuencias negativas por el cambio de los factores estructurales, es exigir que por ley que los programas económicos, de desarrollo urbano y de política extranjera realicen anticipadamente “informes científicos sobre el impacto del VIH/SIDA”. Un primer paso posible es que las propias organizaciones de prevención del VIH investigen y publiquen sus propias “informes de impacto.”¹⁵ Las instituciones financiadoras deberán tomar en cuenta la amplísima variedad de actividades que constituyen la prevención del VIH. Muchas organizaciones comunitarias responden a todo tema relacionado con el VIH, incluyendo algunos que parecen ajenos. Parte de lo que muchas organizaciones comunitarias atienden diariamente son problemáticas mayores relacionadas con guerra, pobreza, desigualdades sociales (ej. racismo y homofobia) y leyes restrictivas. La ayuda para apoyar y organizar estos esfuerzos puede llevar a la creación de intervenciones estructurales necesarias en la prevención del VIH.

¿quién lo dice?

1. Friedman SR, O’Reilly K. Sociocultural interventions at the community level.AIDS. 1997; 11:S201-S208. 2. Friedman SR, Perlis T, Lynch J, et al. Economic inequality, poverty, and laws against syringe access as predictors of metropolitan area rates of drug injection and HIV infection. 2000 Global Research Network Meeting on HIV Prevention in Drug-Using Populations. Third Annual Meeting Report. Durban, South Africa, July 5 -7, 2000. 147-149. 3. Hankins CA, Friedman SR, Zafar T, et al. Transmission and prevention of HIV and STD in war settings: implications for current and future armed conflicts.AIDS. 2002:16(17):2245-52. 4. Wallace R. Urban desertification, public health and public order: ‘planned shrinkage’, violent death, substance abuse and AIDS in the Bronx. Social Science and Medicine. 1990;31:801-813. 5. Lurie P, Hintzen P, Lowe RA. Socioeconomic obstacles to HIV prevention and treatment in developing countries: the roles of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. AIDS. 1995;9:539-546. 6. Farmer P. Infections and Inequalities: the Modern Plagues. University ofCalifornia Press: Los Angeles. 1999. 7. Celentano DD, Nelson KE, Lyles CM, et al. Decreasing incidence of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases in young Thai men: evidence for success of the HIV/AIDS control and prevention program. AIDS. 1998;12:F29-F36. 8. Roca E, Ashburn K, Moreno L, et al. Assessing the impact of environmental-structural interventions. Presented at the International AIDS Conference,Barcelona, Spain. 2002. Abst #TuPeC4831. 9. Groseclose SL, Weinstein B, Jones TS, et al. Impact of increased legal access to needles and syringes on practices of injecting drug users and police officers–Connecticut, 1992-1993. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.1995;10:82-89. 10. The STOP AIDS Project. Q Action, ¡Ya Basta! San Francisco, CA. 415/865-0790 x303 11. Gostin LO. The legal environment impeding access to sterile syringes and needles: the conflict between law enforcement and public health. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 1998;18:S60-70. 12. Piot P, Coll Seck AM. International response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic: planning for success. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2001;79:1106-1112. 13. Diaz RM, Ayala G, Marin BV. Latino gay men and HIV: risk behavior as a sign of oppression. Focus. 2000;15:1-5. 14. Friedman SR, Aral S. Social networks, risk potential networks, health and disease. Journal of Urban Health. 2001;78:411-418. 15. Friedman SR, Reid G. The need for dialectical models as shown in the response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. (in press).

Preparado por Sam Friedman*, Kelly Knight** *National Development and Research Institutes, ** CAPS Traducción Rocky Schnaath Enero 2003. Hoja Informativa 46S

are sex workers at risk for HIV?

what places sex workers at risk?

what are barriers to prevention?

what is being done?

what still needs to be done?