How Treatment Partners Help: Social Analysis of an African Adherence Support Intervention

Treatment partnering is an adherence intervention developed in sub-Saharan Africa. This paper describes the additional social functions that treatment partners serve and shows how these functions contribute to health and survival for patients with HIV/AIDS. Ninety-eight minimally structured interviews were conducted with twenty pairs of adult HIV/AIDS patients (N = 20) and treatment partners (N = 20) treated at a public HIV-care setting in Tanzania. Four social functions were identified using inductive, category construction and interpretive methods of analysis: (1) encouraging disclosure; (2) combating stigma; (3) restoring hope; and (4) reducing social difference. These functions work to restore social connections and reverse the isolating effects of HIV/AIDS, strengthening access to essential community safety nets. Besides encouraging ARV adherence, treatment partners contribute to the social health of patients. Social health as well as HIV treatment success is essential to survival for persons living with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa

A qualitative approach to understand antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence for refugees living in Nakivale Refugee Settlement in Uganda

Background: Refugees living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa suffer unique hardships that may increase their vulnerability to interruptions in antiretroviral therapy (ART). Methods: To investigate refugees’ experiences adhering to ART, we conducted inperson interviews with refugees on ART (n = 73) and HIV clinic staff (n = 4) in Nakivale Refugee Settlement in southwest Uganda from March to July 2011. Three analysts used a conventional content analysis approach to evaluate these data. Results: Refugees described profound motivation to adhere to ART and employed adherence strategies to facilitate success despite the austere setting. However, refugees spoke of specific hardships living in Nakivale that served as barriers to ART adherence, including difficulty accessing clinic when ill, food insecurity, drug stockouts, and violence and unrest in the settlement. For some refugees, need for ART inextricably linked them to the HIV clinic and prevented them from transitioning permanently away from the settlement. Conclusions: By learning about refugees’ experiences we can design informed interventions to enhance ART adherence, thus minimizing morbidity and mortality, preventing transmission of HIV, and supporting refugees’ abilities to move freely toward repatriation, resettlement or integration in their host country

Feasibility and acceptability of home-based HIV testing among refugees: a pilot study in Nakivale refugee settlement in southwestern Uganda

Abstract Background Refugees in sub-Saharan Africa face both the risk of HIV infection and barriers to HIV testing. We conducted a pilot study to determine the feasibility and acceptability of home-based HIV testing in Nakivale Refugee Settlement in Uganda and to compare home-based and clinic-based testing participants in Nakivale. Methods From February–March 2014, we visited homes in 3 villages in Nakivale up to 3 times and offered HIV testing. We enrolled adults who spoke English, Kiswahili, Kinyarwanda, or Runyankore; some were refugees and some Ugandan nationals. We surveyed them about their socio-demographic characteristics. We evaluated the proportion of individuals encountered (feasibility) and assessed participation in HIV testing among those encountered (acceptability). We compared characteristics of home-based and clinic-based testers (from a prior study in Nakivale) using Wilcoxon rank sum and Pearson’s chi-square tests. We examined the relationship between a limited number of factors (time of visit, sex, and number of individuals at home) on willingness to test, using logistic regression models with the generalized estimating equations approach to account for clustering. Results Of 566 adults living in 319 homes, we encountered 507 (feasibility = 90%): 353 (62%) were present at visit one, 127 (22%) additional people at visit two, and 27 (5%) additional people at visit three. Home-based HIV testing participants totaled 378 (acceptability = 75%). Compared to clinic-based testers, home-based testers were older (median age 30 [IQR 24–40] vs 28 [IQR 22–37], p < 0.001), more likely refugee than Ugandan national (93% vs 79%, < 0.001), and more likely to live ≥1 h from clinic (74% vs 52%, < 0.001). The HIV prevalence was lower, but not significantly, in home-based compared to clinic-based testing participants (1.9 vs 3.4% respectively, p = 0.27). Testing was not associated with time of visit (p = 0.50) or sex (p = 0.66), but for each additional person at home, the odds of accepting HIV testing increased by over 50% (OR 1.52, 95%CI 1.12–2.06, p = 0.007). Conclusions Home-based HIV testing in Nakivale Refugee Settlement was feasible, with 90% of eligible individuals encountered within 3 visits, and acceptable with 75% willing to test for HIV, with a yield of nearly 2% individuals tested identified as HIV-positive

Predictors of HIV infection: a prospective HIV screening study in a Ugandan refugee settlement

Background: The instability faced by refugees may place them at increased risk of exposure to HIV infection. Nakivale Refugee Settlement in southwestern Uganda hosts 68,000 refugees from 11 countries, many with high HIV prevalence. We implemented an HIV screening program in Nakivale and examined factors associated with new HIV diagnosis. Methods: From March 2013-November 2014, we offered free HIV screening to all clients in the Nakivale Health Center while they waited for their outpatient clinic visit. Clients included refugees and Ugandan nationals accessing services in the settlement. Prior to receiving the HIV test result, participants were surveyed to obtain demographic information including gender, marital status, travel time to reach clinic, refugee status, and history of prior HIV testing. We compared variables for HIV-infected and non-infected clients using Pearson’s chi-square test, and used multivariable binomial regression models to identify predictors of HIV infection. Results: During the HIV screening intervention period, 330 (4%) of 7766 individuals tested were identified as HIV-infected. Refugees were one quarter as likely as Ugandan nationals to be HIV-infected (aRR 0.27 [0.21, 0.34], p < 0.0001). Additionally, being female (aRR 1.43 [1.14, 1.80], p = 0.002) and traveling more than 1 h to the clinic (aRR 1.39 [1.11, 1.74], p = 0.003) increased the likelihood of being HIV-infected. Compared to individuals who were married or in a stable relationship, being divorced/separated/widowed increased the risk of being HIV-infected (aRR 2.41 [1.88, 3.08], p < 0.0001), while being single reduced the risk (aRR 0.60 [0.41, 0.86], p < 0.0001). Having been previously tested for HIV (aRR 0.59 [0.47, 0.74], p < 0.0001) also lowered the likelihood of being HIV-infected. Conclusions: In an HIV screening program in a refugee settlement in Uganda, Ugandan nationals are at higher risk of having HIV than refugees. The high HIV prevalence among clients seeking outpatient care, including Ugandan nationals and refugees, warrants enhanced HIV screening services in Nakivale and in the surrounding region. Findings from this research may be relevant for other refugee settlements in Sub-Saharan Africa hosting populations with similar demographics, including the 9 other refugee settlements in Uganda

A cohort study to assess a communication intervention to improve linkage to HIV care in Nakivale Refugee Settlement, Uganda

Communication interventions to enhance linkage to HIV care have been successful in sub-Saharan Africa but have not been assessed among refugees. Refugees and Ugandan nationals participating in HIV testing in Nakivale Refugee Settlement were offered weekly phone call and short message service (SMS) reminders. We assessed linkage to care and predictors of linkage within 90 days of testing, comparing Intervention participants to those unwilling or ineligible to participate (Non-Intervention). Of 208 individuals diagnosed with HIV, 101 (49%) participated in the intervention. No difference existed between Intervention and Non-intervention groups in linkage to care (73 [72%] vs. 76 [71%], p = 0.88). Excluding those who linked prior to receipt of intervention, the intervention improved linkage (69 [68%] vs. 50 [47%], p = 0.002). Participants were more likely to link if they were older (aOR 2.39 [1.31, 4.37], p = 0.005) or Ugandan nationals (aOR 3.76 [1.12, 12.66], p = 0.033). Although the communication intervention did not significantly improve linkage to HIV care, the linkage was improved when excluding those with same-day linkage. Excluding participants without a phone was a significant limitation; these data are meant to inform more rigorous designs moving forward. Innovative methods to improve linkage to HIV care for this vulnerable population are urgently needed

Understanding the barriers and facilitators of COVID-19 risk mitigation strategy adoption and COVID-19 vaccination in refugee settlements in Uganda: a qualitative study

Abstract Background Perspectives on COVID-19 risk and the willingness and ability of persons living in refugee settlements to adopt COVID-19 prevention strategies have not been rigorously evaluated. The realities of living conditions in Ugandan refugee settlements may limit the extent to which refugees can uptake strategies to mitigate COVID-19 risk. Methods In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted between April 2021 and April 2022 to assess COVID-19 knowledge, risk perception, prevention strategy adoption including COVID-19 vaccination, and COVID-19 impact on living conditions in refugee settlements in Uganda. Interview participants included 28 purposively selected refugees who called into “Dial-COVID”, a free telephone COVID-19 information collection and dissemination platform that was advertised in refugee settlements by community health workers. Interviews were analyzed using a combination of deductive and inductive content analysis. Emerging themes were mapped onto the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify domains influencing prevention behavior. Results were synthesized to provide intervention and policy recommendations for risk mitigation in refugee settlements for COVID-19 and future infectious disease outbreaks. Results The COVID-19 pandemic detrimentally impacted economic and food security as well as social interactions in refugee settlements. Youth were considered especially impacted, and participants reported incidents of child marriage and teenage pregnancy following school closures. Participants displayed general knowledge of COVID-19 and expressed willingness to protect themselves and others from contracting COVID-19. Risk mitigation strategy uptake including COVID-19 vaccination was influenced by COVID-19 knowledge, emotions surrounding COVID-19, the environmental context and resources, personal goals, beliefs about the consequences of (non)adoption, social influences, and behavior reinforcement. Resource constraints, housing conditions, and competing survival needs challenged the adoption of prevention strategies and compliance decreased over time. Conclusions Contextual challenges impact the feasibility of COVID-19 risk mitigation strategy uptake in refugee settlements. Pre-existing hardships in this setting were amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdowns. Targeted dispelling of myths, alignment of information across communication mediums, supporting survival needs and leveraging of respected role models are strategies that may hold potential to mitigate risk of infectious diseases in this setting. Registration details World Pandemic Research Network – 490,652

Additional file 1 of Understanding the barriers and facilitators of COVID-19 risk mitigation strategy adoption and COVID-19 vaccination in refugee settlements in Uganda: a qualitative study

Supplementary Material