Community patterns of stigma towards persons living with HIV: A population-based latent class analysis from rural Vietnam

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The negative effects of stigma on persons living with HIV (PLHIV) have been documented in many settings and it is thought that stigma against PLHIV leads to more difficulties for those who need to access HIV testing, treatment and care, as well as to limited community uptake of HIV prevention and testing messages. In order to understand and prevent stigma towards PLHIV, it is important to be able to measure stigma within communities and to understand which factors are associated with higher stigma.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To analyze patterns of community stigma and determinants to stigma toward PLHIV, we performed an exploratory population-based survey with 1874 randomly sampled adults within a demographic surveillance site (DSS) in rural Vietnam. Participants were interviewed regarding knowledge of HIV and attitudes towards persons living with HIV. Data were linked to socioeconomic and migration data from the DSS and latent class analysis and multinomial logistic regression were conducted to examine stigma group sub-types and factors associated with stigma group membership.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found unexpectedly high and complex patterns of stigma against PLHIV in this rural setting. Women had the greatest odds of belong to the highest stigma group (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.42-2.37), while those with more education had lower odds of highest stigma group membership (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.32-0.62 for secondary education; OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10-0.35 for tertiary education). Long-term migration out of the district (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.4-0.91), feeling at-risk for HIV (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27-0.66), having heard of HIV from more sources (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.3-0.66), and knowing someone with HIV (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.99) were all associated with lower odds of highest stigma group membership. Nearly 20% of the population was highly unsure of their attitudes towards PLHIV and persons in this group had significantly lower odds of feeling at-risk for HIV (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.90) or of knowing someone with HIV (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22-0.46).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Stigma towards PLHIV is high generally, and very high in some sub-groups, in this community setting. Future stigma prevention efforts could be enhanced by analyzing community stigma sub-groups and tailoring intervention messages to community patterns of stigma.</p

Towards standardized definitions for monitoring the continuum of HIV care in Europe

International audienceThe continuum of HIV care is a simple conceptual framework for monitoring HIV programmes, comprising a series of stages that people living with HIV (PLHIV) pass through to access antiretroviral treatment (ART) and achieve viral suppression [1,2]. Individual benefits of suppression include reduced risk of morbidity and mortality. At the population level, viral suppression reduces the risk of onward transmission and enables epidemic containment [3]. Transmission risk may be further reduced by lowering the number of undiagnosed PLHIV [4,5]. Complete continua are, therefore, constructed beginning with the total number of PLHIV in a given population and ending with the number virally suppressed. Intervening stages have included the numbers diagnosed, linked to HIV care, retained in care, eligible for ART, on ART and adhering to ART. Although people can move between stages, the continuum is typically conceptualized as a ‘snapshot’ at one time-point

Potential adjustment methodology for missing data and reporting delay in the HIV Surveillance System, European Union/European Economic Area, 2015

HIV remains one of the most important public health concerns in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA). Accurate data are therefore crucial to appropriately direct and evaluate public health response. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (WHO/Europe) have jointly coordinated enhanced HIV/AIDS surveillance in the European Region since 2008. The general objectives of the surveillance system in EU/EEA countries include monitoring of trends over time and across countries. Specific HIV-related objectives include the monitoring of testing patterns, late HIV diagnoses, defined by low CD4+ counts (<350 cells/mm3), and mortality, as well estimating HIV incidence and prevalence stratified by key populations, e.g. transmission category and migrant status [1]. To meet these objectives, the long-term strategy states that improving the quality of surveillance data is needed [2]. Achieving this in practice poses challenges, especially given the heterogeneous national surveillance systems in the EU/EEA and that the routinely collected data are known to suffer from important quality limitations. The limitations originating from national data collection systems may include under-reporting or duplication of cases, delays in reporting, incompleteness of data and misclassification. Accounting for some of these limitations (e.g. assessment of under-reporting) requires additional data such as cohort studies or registries, while other issues, such as incompleteness and reporting delay, may be addressed directly within the surveillance datasets. Missing data are a well-recognised problem within surveillance systems. When values for some variables are missing and cases with missing values are excluded from analysis, it may lead to biased and potentially less precise estimates [3,4]. In principle, whenever there are missing data or reporting delays, the accuracy of epidemiological distributions and trends should be interpreted with caution. Reporting delay, the time from case diagnosis to notification, can lead to problems when analysing the most recent years, given that the information on some cases or variables may not have been collected yet because of national reporting process characteristics. This phenomenon is common in disease surveillance and also applies to HIV [5-8]. Rough adjustments for reporting delay were already implemented in the past in Europe [8,9], but further refinement of the existing applied methodology is needed to address this issue across more countries’ data. The main purpose of this paper is to explore the issues of missing data and reporting delay in EU/EEA HIV surveillance data. We aim to quantify the extent to which these problems are present and to identify specific data characteristics that are relevant for data adjustments. Taking these characteristics into account, we also propose methods to adjust for missing data and reporting delay based on literature and existing national practices in EU/EEA countries.Peer Reviewe

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in educational settings in 2020: a review

Objectives: School closures have been used as a core non pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This review aims at identifying SARS-CoV-2 transmission in educational settings during the first waves of the pandemic.Methods: This literature review assessed studies published between December 2019 and April 1, 2021 in Medline and Embase, which included studies that assessed educational settings from approximately January 2020 to January 2021. The inclusion criteria were based on the PCC framework (P-Population, C-Concept, C-Context). The study Population was restricted to people 1-17 years old (excluding neonatal transmission), the Concept was to assess child-to-child and child-to-adult transmission, while the Context was to assess specifically educational setting transmission.Results: Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria, ranging from daycare centers to high schools and summer camps, while eight studies assessed the re-opening of schools in the 2020-2021 school year. In principle although there is sufficient evidence that children can both be infected by and transmit SARS-CoV-2 in school settings, the SAR remain relatively low -when NPI measures are implemented in parallel. Moreover, although the evidence was limited there was an indication that younger children may have a lower SAR than adolescents. Conclusions: Transmission in educational settings in 2020 was minimal -when NPI measures were implemented in parallel. However, with an upsurge of cases related to variants of concern, continuous surveillance and assessment of the evidence is warranted to ensure the maximum protection of the health of students and the educational workforce, while also minimising the numerous negative impacts that school closures may have on children

How do economic crises affect migrants’ risk of infectious disease? A systematic-narrative review

Background: It is not well understood how economic crises affect infectious disease incidence and prevalence, particularly among vulnerable groups. Using a susceptible-infected-recovered framework, we systematically reviewed literature on the impact of the economic crises on infectious disease risks in migrants in Europe, focusing principally on HIV, TB, hepatitis and other STIs. Methods: We conducted two searches in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, websites of key organizations and grey literature to identify how economic changes affect migrant populations and infectious disease. We perform a narrative synthesis in order to map critical pathways and identify hypotheses for subsequent research. Results: The systematic review on links between economic crises and migrant health identified 653 studies through database searching; only seven met the inclusion criteria. Fourteen items were identified through further searches. The systematic review on links between economic crises and infectious disease identified 480 studies through database searching; 19 met the inclusion criteria. Eight items were identified through further searches. The reviews show that migrant populations in Europe appear disproportionately at risk of specific infectious diseases, and that economic crises and subsequent responses have tended to exacerbate such risks. Recessions lead to unemployment, impoverishment and other risk factors that can be linked to the transmissibility of disease among migrants. Austerity measures that lead to cuts in prevention and treatment programmes further exacerbate infectious disease risks among migrants. Non-governmental health service providers occasionally stepped in to cater to specific populations that include migrants. Conclusions: There is evidence that migrants are especially vulnerable to infectious disease during economic crises. Ring-fenced funding of prevention programs, including screening and treatment, is important for addressing this vulnerability

Estimating HIV incidence and number of undiagnosed individuals living with HIV in the European Union/European Economic Area, 2015

Helena Cortes Martins, Departamento de Doenças Infeciosas do Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge, IPSince 2011, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) incidence appears unchanged in the European Union/European Economic Area with between 29,000 and 33,000 new cases reported annually up to 2015. Despite evidence that HIV diagnosis is occurring earlier post-infection, the estimated number of people living with HIV (PLHIV) who were unaware of being infected in 2015 was 122,000, or 15% of all PLHIV (n=810,000). This is concerning as such individuals cannot benefit from highly effective treatment and may unknowingly sustain transmission.Members of the ECDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance and Dublin Declaration Monitoring Networks: Portugal: Kamal Mansinho, Helena Cortes Martins, Teresa Melo.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Screening for HIV in Migrants in the EU/EEA: A Systematic Review

Migrants, defined as individuals who move from their country of origin to another, account for 40% of newly-diagnosed cases of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA). Populations at high risk for HIV include migrants, from countries or living in neighbourhoods where HIV is prevalent, and those participating in high risk behaviour. These migrants are at risk of low CD4 counts at diagnosis, increased morbidity, mortality, and onward transmission. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HIV testing strategies in migrant populations and to estimate their effect on testing uptake, mortality, and resource requirements. Following a systematic overview, we included four systematic reviews on the effectiveness of strategies in non-migrant populations and inferred their effect on migrant populations, as well as eight individual studies on cost-effectiveness/resource requirements. We assessed the certainty of our results using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The systematic reviews reported that HIV tests are highly accurate (rapid test >90% sensitivity, Western blot and ELISA >99% sensitivity). A meta-analysis showed that rapid testing approaches improve the access and uptake of testing (risk ratio = 2.95, 95% CI: 1.69 to 5.16), and were associated with a lower incidence of HIV in the middle-aged women subgroup among marginalised populations at a high risk of HIV exposure and HIV related stigma. Economic evidence on rapid counselling and testing identified strategic advantages with rapid tests. In conclusion, community-based rapid testing programmes may have the potential to improve uptake of HIV testing among migrant populations across a range of EU/EEA settings

The cost of the COVID-19 pandemic vs the cost-effectiveness of mitigation strategies in EU/UK/OECD: a systematic review

Objectives: The economic burden of COVID-19 pandemic is substantial, with both direct and indirect costs playing a significant role. Design: A systematic literature review was conducted to estimate the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic and the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical interventions. All cost data were adjusted to the 2021 Euro, and interventions compared with null.Data Sources: Ovid Medline and EMBASE were searched from January 2020 through 22nd of April 2021. Eligibility Criteria: Studies regarding COVID-19 outbreak or public health preparedness measures or interventions with outcome measures related to the direct and indirect costs for disease and preparedness and/or response for the EU/EEA/UK and OECD countries of all relevant epidemiological designs which estimate cost within the selected timeframe.Data extraction and synthesis: Studies were searched, screened, and coded independently by two reviewers with high measure of inter-rater agreement. Data were extracted to a predefined data extraction sheet. The risk of bias was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist.Results: We included data from 41 economic studies. Ten studies evaluated the cost of the COVID-19 pandemic, while 31 assessed the cost-benefit of public health surveillance, preparedness, and response measures. Overall, the economic burden of the COVID-19 pandemic was found to be substantial. Community screening, bed provision policies, investing in personal-protective-equipment and vaccination strategies were cost-effective. Physical distancing measures were associated with health benefits; however, their cost-effectiveness was dependent on the duration, compliance and the phase of the epidemic in which it was implemented. Conclusions: COVID-19 pandemic is associated with substantial short-term and long-term economic costs to healthcare systems, payers, and societies, while interventions including testing and screening policies, vaccination and physical distancing policies were identified as those presenting cost-effective options to deal with the pandemic, dependent on population vaccination and the Re at the stage of the pandemic

What must be done to tackle vaccine hesitancy and barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in migrants?

Migrants have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 and emerging evidence suggests they may face barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. Participatory approaches and engagement strategies are urgently needed to strengthen uptake, alongside innovative delivery mechanisms and sharing of best practice, to ensure migrants are better consider within countries’ existing vaccine priority structures