For the past several years, diverse and often confused concepts of stigma have been invoked in discussions on AIDS. Many have argued compellingly that AIDS-related stigma acts as a barrier to voluntary counseling and testing. Less compelling are observations regarding the source of stigma or its role in decreasing interest in HIV care. We reviewed these claims as well as literature from anthropology, sociology, and public health. Preliminary data from research in rural Haiti suggest that the introduction of quality HIV care can lead to a rapid reduction in stigma, with resulting increased uptake of testing. Rather than stigma, logistic and economic barriers determine who will access such services. Implications for scale-up of integrated AIDS prevention and care are explored.

No abstract

No abstract

Compliance with HIV treatment is affected by many issues and social factors are as important as biological ones.

BackgroundAlthough mistreatment of women during facility-based childbirth has received increasing recognition as a critical issue throughout the world, there remains a lack of consensus on operational definitions of mistreatment and best practices to assess the issue. Moreover, only minimal research has focused on mistreatment in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region notable for social inequalities and inequitable access to maternal health care.MethodsIn this article, we discuss the results of a literature review that sought to contribute to the determination of best practices in defining and measuring the mistreatment of women during childbirth, particularly within Latin America and the Caribbean. The review includes a total of 57 English, Spanish, and Portuguese-language research publications and eight legal documents that were published between 2000 and 2017.ResultsWhile the typologies of “disrespect and abuse” and “mistreatment during facility-based childbirth” are most frequently employed in global studies, “obstetric violence” remains the most commonly operationalized term in Latin America and the Caribbean in both research and policy contexts. Various researchers have advocated for the use of those three different typologies, yet the terms all share commonalities in highlighting the medicalization of natural processes of childbirth, roots in gender inequalities, parallels with violence against women, the potential for harm, and the threat to women’s rights. For measuring mistreatment, half of the research publications in this review use qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews and focus groups. After analyzing the strengths and limitations of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches to assessing mistreatment, we recommend mixed methods designs as the optimal strategy to evaluate mistreatment and advocate for the inclusion of direct observations that may help bridge the gap between observed measures and participants’ self-reported experiences of mistreatment.ConclusionsNo matter the conceptual framework used in future investigations, we recommend that studies seek to accomplish three objectives: (1) to measure the perceived and observed frequencies of mistreatment in maternal health settings, (2) to examine the macro and micro level factors that drive mistreatment, and (3) to assess the impact of mistreatment on the health outcomes of women and their newborns.

A human rights violation, obstetric violence encompasses numerous forms of mistreatment against women giving birth in health care facilities. Based on this framework, we conducted open-ended exit interviews with 43 women who had given birth at either one of the two largest public maternity hospitals in the Dominican Republic. Women's narratives revealed a contrast between scholarly definitions of obstetric violence and their own perceptions of receiving abusive care. Analyzing obstetric violence as a form of reproductive governance and the adaptive preference that ensues helps explain why most women accepted with endurance the poor quality of care that they received.

Westerhaus and Castro argue that US-negotiated bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade agreements are hindering access to essential HIV medicines in poor countries.

BackgroundCesarean section is the only surgery for which we have nearly global population-based data. However, few surveys provide additional data related to cesarean sections. Given weaknesses in many health information systems, health planners in developing countries will likely rely on nationally representative surveys for the foreseeable future. The objective is to validate self-reported data on the emergency status of cesarean sections among women delivering in teaching hospitals in the capitals of two contrasting countries: Accra, Ghana and Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (DR).Methods and FindingsThis study compares hospital-based data, considered the reference standard, against women’s self-report for two definitions of emergency cesarean section based on the timing of the decision to operate and the timing of the cesarean section relative to onset of labor. Hospital data were abstracted from individual medical records, and hospital discharge interviews were conducted with women who had undergone cesarean section in two hospitals. The study assessed sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of responses to questions regarding emergency versus non-emergency cesarean section and estimated the percent of emergency cesarean sections that would be obtained from a survey, given the observed prevalence, sensitivity, and specificity from this study. Hospital data were matched with exit interviews for 659 women delivered via cesarean section for Ghana and 1,531 for the Dominican Republic. In Ghana and the Dominican Republic, sensitivity and specificity for emergency cesarean section defined by decision time were 79% and 82%, and 50% and 80%, respectively. The validity of emergency cesarean defined by operation time showed less favorable results than decision time in Ghana and slightly more favorable results in the Dominican Republic.ConclusionsQuestions used in this study to identify emergency cesarean section are promising but insufficient to promote for inclusion in international survey questionnaires. Additional studies which confirm the accuracy of key facility-based indicators in advance of data collection and which use a longer recall period are warranted.