Framing Responsibility

Race, Kane

doi:10.1007/s11673-012-9375-x

Cited by 42 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, there are many ways in which the existing efforts of individuals and communities already work to reduce the risk of transmission, and have done for many years [22]. These accounts remind us that if public health messages seek to further 'responsibilise' the person with HIV through encouraging the use biomedical treatments [46], but do not also include explicit recognition of the effort expended in 'navigating risk in everyday life' [1: 4], this can have the unintended effect of being read as applicable only to imagined, 'irresponsible' others.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Concerns About Treatment-as-Prevention Among People with HIV who are not Using Antiretroviral Therapy

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of antiretroviral therapy to prevent HIV transmission is now advocated in many settings, yet little research has documented the views of people with HIV. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Australia between 2012 and 2014 with 27 HIV-positive people not using treatment at the time of interview. Thematic analysis of views on treatment-as-prevention found that while many participants recognised potential prevention benefits, only a minority was in support of initiating treatment solely to achieve those benefits. A range of uncertain or critical views were expressed regarding who would benefit, risk reduction, and changing treatment norms. Participants resisted responsibility narratives that implied treatment should be used for the public good, in favour of making considered decisions about their preferred approach to managing HIV. Engaging communities in dialogue and debate regarding the risks and benefits of treatment will be critical if this new prevention strategy is to engender public trust.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Concerns About Treatment-as-Prevention Among People with HIV who are not Using Antiretroviral Therapy

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast to the private individualized frame for HIV prevention emphasized by medical organizations (Amico & Bekker, 2019;Race, 2012), it appears sex remains political as private lives become increasingly discussed and moralized in public arenas (Hanisch, 1969;Plummer, 2003). Our findings show that in the early stages of PrEP rollout in both The United States and…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Framing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis use as a public or private matter

Martínez¹,

Jonas²

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PrEP campaigns often promote a medicalized ‘private’ frame that emphasizes personal HIV risk management. We explore how a ‘public’ frame emphasizing community maintenance of sexual health is increasingly relevant in men who have sex with men (MSM) and offers new intervention points for biomedical HIV prevention. In a cross-cultural examination of early adoption of PrEP frames, we sampled MSM from The United States (N=311 in 2015) and The Netherlands (N=222 in 2020) soon after each country’s official introduction of PrEP. Using linear regressions and machine learning, we calculated the prevalence of support for different PrEP frames, their person-level correlates, and their relevance for community-oriented actions like comfort disclosing one’s own PrEP use. The samples were mostly neutral about PrEP framing (US:44%, Netherlands:48%), yet many held a private (US:23%, Netherlands:28%) or public (US:33%, Netherlands:24%) PrEP frame. PrEP users in both countries were more likely to hold a public or neutral frame, non-users were more heterogeneous in their PrEP frames. Comfort with PrEP disclosure was more associated with a public than private frame. PrEP messaging and uptake could improve by understanding how MSM frame their PrEP use as a public or private matter and through context-informed interventions on views about PrEP disclosure.

show abstract

“…Unlike the tactic of appropriating Ellison’s frame to potentially align perspectives in discourse, Bradshaw maintains a distinct frame for responsibility that indirectly implies that the Government is potentially responsible for negative events. Specifically, his language choices seemingly indicate a recognition of how stigmatizing sexual behavior is often used to question the “legitimacy” of sexual minorities as recipients of care (e.g., Berger, Ferrans, & Lashley, 2001; Earnshaw & Chaudoir, 2009; Epstein & Mamo, 2017; Prior, Wood, Lewis, & Pill, 2003; Race, 2012). However, in raising the possible danger of stigma in public policy, Bradshaw uses passive voice in ways that shift the syntactic focus and ascription of agency.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Metaphors: Shifting Institutional Responsibilities and Evidentiary Boundaries in the Commissioning of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we investigate how speakers in the U.K.’s House of Commons cited the same legislative context and medical research to arrive at contradictory conclusions regarding the Government’s responsibility to fund pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an HIV intervention. Because the Government had expressed that it would not comment on institutional responsibilities directly, given the likelihood of a legal challenge in response to the National Health Service withdrawing PrEP from the drug commissioning process, the Government’s support of this decision could not be explicitly detailed. Our discourse analytic approach reveals how members of parliament adopted positions in the debate by using distinct metaphorical frames and lexical choices to linguistically encode assumptions that imply contrary interpretations of mutually agreed upon facts. This suggests that the concrete discursive practices used to cite evidence in policy-making discussions, regardless of the quality of the evidence, may have material consequences for evidence-based policy.

show abstract

Framing Responsibility

Cited by 42 publications

References 27 publications

Understanding Concerns About Treatment-as-Prevention Among People with HIV who are not Using Antiretroviral Therapy

Understanding Concerns About Treatment-as-Prevention Among People with HIV who are not Using Antiretroviral Therapy

Framing HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis use as a public or private matter

Moving Metaphors: Shifting Institutional Responsibilities and Evidentiary Boundaries in the Commissioning of Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for HIV

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About