Structural drivers and social protection:Mechanisms of HIV risk and HIV prevention for South African adolescents

Introduction: Social protection is high on the HIV-prevention agenda for youth in sub-Saharan Africa. However, questions remain: How do unconditional cash transfers work? What is the effect of augmenting cash provision with social care? And can “cash plus care” social protection reduce risks for adolescents most vulnerable to infection? This study tackles these questions by first identifying mediated pathways to adolescent HIV risks and then examining potential main and moderating effects of social protection in South Africa. Methods: This study was a prospective observational study of 3515 10-to-17-year-olds (56.7% female; 96.8% one-year retention). Within randomly selected census areas in four rural and urban districts in two South African provinces, all homes with a resident adolescent were sampled between 2009/2010 and 2011/2012. Measures included 1) potential structural drivers of HIV infection such as poverty and community violence; 2) HIV risk behaviours; 3) hypothesized psychosocial mediating factors; and 4) types of social protection involving cash and care. Using gender-disaggregated analyses, longitudinal mediation models were tested for potential main and moderating effects of social protection. Results: Structural drivers were associated with increased onset of adolescent HIV risk behaviour (p<0.001, B=0.06, SE=0.01), fully mediated by increased psychosocial problems. Both cash and care aspects of social protection were associated with reductions in HIV risk behaviour and psychosocial deprivations. In addition, cash social protection moderated risk pathways: for adolescent girls and boys experiencing more acute structural deprivation, social protection had the greatest associations with HIV risk prevention (e.g. moderation effects for girls: B=−0.08, p<0.002 between structural deprivation and psychosocial problems, and B=−0.07, p<0.001 between psychosocial problems and HIV risk behaviour). Conclusions: Adolescents with the greatest structural deprivation are at higher risk of HIV, but social protection has the greatest prevention effects for the most vulnerable. Social protection comprising unconditional cash plus care was associated with reduced risk pathways through moderation and main effects, respectively. Our findings suggest the importance of social protection within a combination package of HIV-prevention approaches

Social protection:Potential for improving HIV outcomes among adolescents

Introduction Advances in biomedical technologies provide potential for adolescent HIV prevention and HIV‐positive survival. The UNAIDS 90–90–90 treatment targets provide a new roadmap for ending the HIV epidemic, principally through antiretroviral treatment, HIV testing and viral suppression among people with HIV. However, while imperative, HIV treatment and testing will not be sufficient to address the epidemic among adolescents in Southern and Eastern Africa. In particular, use of condoms and adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) remain haphazard, with evidence that social and structural deprivation is negatively impacting adolescents’ capacity to protect themselves and others. This paper examines the evidence for and potential of interventions addressing these structural deprivations. Discussion New evidence is emerging around social protection interventions, including cash transfers, parenting support and educational support (“cash, care and classroom”). These interventions have the potential to reduce the social and economic drivers of HIV risk, improve utilization of prevention technologies and improve adherence to ART for adolescent populations in the hyper‐endemic settings of Southern and Eastern Africa. Studies show that the integration of social and economic interventions has high acceptability and reach and that it holds powerful potential for improved HIV, health and development outcomes. Conclusions Social protection is a largely untapped means of reducing HIV‐risk behaviours and increasing uptake of and adherence to biomedical prevention and treatment technologies. There is now sufficient evidence to include social protection programming as a key strategy not only to mitigate the negative impacts of the HIV epidemic among families, but also to contribute to HIV prevention among adolescents and potentially to remove social and economic barriers to accessing treatment. We urge a further research and programming agenda: to actively combine programmes that increase availability of biomedical solutions with social protection policies that can boost their utilization.</p