28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Give the community the tools and they will help finish the job: key population‐led health services for ending AIDS in Thailand

      article-commentary

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Time is running out for countries to end AIDS by 2030. Success will require putting “fast‐track” solutions in the hands of those who can make the greatest impact – the community. Progress in engaging communities in the planning and delivery of health services, which the WHO recommended as a task‐shifting strategy over a decade ago [1], has been painfully slow. Task shifting HIV service delivery to the affected community will broaden options for service delivery and extend the reach of services among those in need [2]. The Key Population‐led Health Services (KPLHS) model was established in Thailand in 2015 to demonstrate how task shifting can be realized through delivering HIV and health services that would normally be delivered by medical professionals in health facilities, by lay providers who are members of the key population communities. In the context of the Thai HIV epidemic, the affected communities or key populations (KP) comprise men who have sex with men (MSM), transgender women (TGW), sex workers (SW) and people who inject drugs (PWID) who contributed to two‐thirds of new HIV cases during 2015 to 2019 [3]. The KPLHS approach was proposed by grass root MSM, TGW and SW communities. It is a model that has demonstrated feasibility, acceptability and affordability of KP‐led service delivery. This optimizes KP contextual knowledge and connections to help navigate hardest‐to‐reach and at‐risk individuals to where essential health and HIV services can be obtained. These are designed and co‐delivered by the KP community, in close collaboration with the public health sector, to ensure services are free from disrespectful care, verbal and physical abuse, and outright denial of care due to stigma and discrimination which often characterise conventional health care settings [4]. The design of the service package is needs‐based, demand‐driven, and client‐centred. For example, a service package designed for TGW integrates gender affirming care with sexual health service to address common health concerns prioritized by TGW [5], while for SW, legal assistance and out‐of‐school education are co‐located in sexual health clinics to provide both social and clinical services highly needed among this community. KPLHS follows three principles: (i) KP‐friendliness: that is, non‐stigmatizing and confidential; (ii) accessibility: that is, flexible service hours, low or no cost, and geographically close to KP’s workplaces and gathering venues; and (iii) quality: that is, adhering to national regulations and standards for health service delivery. KPLHS supports Thailand’s National AIDS Strategies to enhance uptake of HIV services along the Reach‐Recruit‐Test‐Treat‐Retain cascade. Comprehensive KPLHS services are set out in Figure 1. All services are delivered in community settings by trained KPLHS lay providers, tailored to the needs of each KP community and linked closely with the public health sector. Figure 1 Key population‐led health services flow along the Reach‐Recruit‐Test‐Treat‐Prevent‐Retain cascade. ART, antiretroviral therapy; Cr, creatinine; CT, Chlamydia trachomatis; CXR, chest x‐ray; HCV, hepatitis C virus; HPV, human papillomavirus; mHealth, mobile health; MSM, men who have sex with men; NG, Neisseria gonorrhoea; PEP, post‐exposure prophylaxis; POC, point‐of‐care; PrEP, pre‐exposure prophylaxis; STI, sexually transmitted infection; TB, tuberculosis; TGW, transgender women; U=U, undetectable equals untransmittable; UA, urine analysis; VL, viral load; Xpress, express. KPLHS lay providers are equipped through systematic training, mentoring, coaching and certification to provide comprehensive HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention and treatment services [6], including point‐of‐care HIV/STI testing, pre‐ and post‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP/PEP), treatment service linkages, and case management support. Services are provided in an express fashion aiming at service completion within the same day to minimize leakage in the HIV/STI service cascade. The public health sector supports quality assurance, accreditation, linkages to treatment and harmonization of data monitoring and reporting systems. KPLHS takes advantage of the widespread use of mobile phones and social media platforms to enhance HIV service uptake and retention. KP communities have developed online tools to map their networks to differentiate outreach activities based on case finding results and to link those who are reached online to offline services through online booking. Assistance for HIV self‐testing in community settings and online supervision are provided. Involving KP communities in HIV service provision is efficient for preventing HIV infection, loss to follow up and earlier treatment initiation. Data for 2018 show that KPLHS has enabled early diagnosis with a median CD4 count at diagnosis of 388 cells/mm3 [7], compared to 192 cells/mm3 in public health facilities [8]. It has improved treatment outcomes. 84.3% (730/866) of newly diagnosed HIV‐positive clients in KPLHS sites were successfully linked to antiretroviral therapy initiation and 95.6% (537/562) tested for viral load had viral load suppression [7]. It has facilitated the uptake of PrEP among KP. 36% of 7670 HIV‐negative clients at risk for HIV infection who were offered PrEP, accepted it [9]. These metrics have been instrumental in gaining the acceptance of the Thai HIV policy community and medical professionals. Evidence‐based advocacy, publication in peer‐reviewed journals and concerted policy dialogue, involving academics and KP community leaders led to the government removing regulatory barriers for lay provider testing and increasing domestic financing through social contracting mechanisms [10]. Attitudes of medical health professionals towards lay providers have changed to become more accepting and supportive. Sustaining this model involves institutionalizing: (i) technical capacity of KP service providers; (ii) a quality assurance system; and (iii) KPLHS inclusion in the overall universal health care system and budgets. It is critical to invest more in professionalizing KPLHS providers to enhance their technical skills and reputation which are essential to enable government funding of KPLHS. Further work is needed in Thailand to enable scaling up of KPLHS to end AIDS in the shortest possible timeframe. Competing public health priorities, including emerging infectious diseases will inevitably divert resources from HIV/AIDS and put additional pressure on the functioning of health systems. At this juncture, it is necessary to emphasize the significant contribution that community can make in health system strengthening overall. The KPLHS model can be adapted to different priority populations, public health priorities and country contexts, particularly where social stigma and discrimination associated with health issues undermine access to health care settings. The model is currently being adapted for the PWID community in Thailand but it is at an early stage of implementation. It has a focus on integrated HIV/hepatitis C testing and treatment. Adaptation to other country contexts will depend on building the credibility, capacity and commitment of the KP community to take on this approach and for governments to follow the science to implement task shifting at scale. COMPETING INTERESTS All authors declare no competing interests. AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS NP and RV developed the conceptualization and design of the Viewpoint. RV was the principal author of the first draft. PP and NP provided critical guidance, input and subsequent revisions. KT developed the figure illustrating KPLHS service flow. SJ, DL, PC, SS, SP, RR and RJ provided inputs and essential references. All authors have reviewed and approved the final article.

          Related collections

          Most cited references7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Linkages to HIV confirmatory testing and antiretroviral therapy after online, supervised, HIV self‐testing among Thai men who have sex with men and transgender women

          Abstract Introduction Online, supervised, HIV self‐testing has potential to reach men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW) who never tested before and who had high HIV‐positive yield. We studied linkages to HIV confirmatory test and antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation among Thai MSM and TGW who chose online and/or offline platforms for HIV testing and factors associated with unsuccessful linkages. Methods MSM and TGW were enrolled from Bangkok Metropolitan Region and Pattaya during December 2015 to June 2017 and followed for 12 months. Participants could choose between: 1) offline HIV counselling and testing (Offline group), 2) online pre‐test counselling and offline HIV testing (Mixed group) and 3) online counselling and online, supervised, HIV self‐testing (Online group). Sociodemographic data, risk behaviour and social network use characteristics were collected by self‐administered questionnaires. Linkages to HIV confirmatory testing and/or ART initiation were collected from participants who tested reactive/positive at baseline and during study follow‐up. Modified Poisson regression models identified covariates for poor retention and unsuccessful ART initiation. Results Of 465 MSM and 99 TGW, 200 self‐selected the Offline group, 156 the Mixed group and 208 the Online group. The Online group demonstrated highest HIV prevalence (15.0% vs. 13.0% vs. 3.4%) and high HIV incidence (5.1 vs. 8.3 vs. 3.2 per 100 person‐years), compared to the Offline and Mixed groups. Among 60 baseline HIV positive and 18 seroconversion participants, successful ART initiation in the Online group (52.8%) was lower than the Offline (84.8%) and Mixed groups (77.8%). Factors associated with unsuccessful ART initiation included choosing to be in the Online group (aRR 3.94, 95% CI 1.07 to 14.52), <17 years old at first sex (aRR 3.02, 95% CI 1.15 to 7.92), amphetamine‐type stimulants use in the past six months (aRR 3.6, 95% CI 1.22 to 10.64) and no/single sex partner (aRR 3.84, 95%CI 1.36 to 10.83) in the past six months. Conclusions Online, supervised, HIV self‐testing allowed more MSM and TGW to know their HIV status. However, linkages to confirmatory test and ART initiation once tested HIV‐reactive are key challenges. Alternative options to bring HIV test confirmation, prevention and ART services to these individuals after HIV self‐testing are needed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Key populations and power: people-centred social innovation in Asian HIV services

            Key populations increasingly lead the design, implementation, and evaluation of HIV services, which provides an opportunity to make them more people-centred. Despite many challenges, a strong argument that these populations must have a greater role in HIV service planning, development, and delivery worldwide exists. This Viewpoint focuses on Asia, where key populations have advocated for legal reform, engaged vulnerable groups to decrease stigma, co-created innovative HIV services, and developed new key population-led health services. Further research on key populations and their roles in HIV implementation and sustainable scale-up is needed in Asia and beyond.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Ending discrimination in healthcare

              In mid‐January, in a sparsely populated corner of northern Ghana, I met a 13‐year‐old girl named Hannah. I asked her about her responsibilities at home and her studies and how she imagined her future. Her response was quick. She said she would like to become a nurse. When I asked why, her answer was as prompt. She explained that a few months previously she had been sick and taken to a health clinic. The nurses there, she said, did not have a good attitude towards patients. She wanted to change that. There are many reasons why the patient care Hannah experienced might have been less than optimal. While Ghana has invested significantly in increasing the number of nurses and midwives and exceeds the WHO's recommended nurse to population ratio, many challenges to ensuring quality care remain, including the training and mentoring of newly trained nurses 1. Another challenge is stigma and discrimination. Stigma and discrimination may be due to multiple factors, but centres on the identification of an “other” and their devaluation. Stigma may be based on expectations of roles in society (e.g. racism), cultural norms (e.g. homophobia) and/or fears of contagion (avoidance of infectious diseases). In the case of HIV, stigma and discrimination may have multifactorial causes and expressions. Stigma and discrimination have been much discussed in the HIV response, as well in public health interventions seeking to expand access to sexual and reproductive health and mental health services. Nonetheless, they remain a persistent obstacle to achieving the goal of universal health coverage and “leaving no one behind”. People living with HIV experience a range of stigmatizing experiences and discrimination within society, from social isolation to violence to denial of housing, employment and healthcare. They may also face police harassment or arrest in contexts where HIV transmission or specific behaviours are criminalized, and often confront intersecting stigma and discrimination due to other health conditions or identities, including gender, disability, race/ethnicity and sexuality. Recognizing this, in 2014 the United Nations selected 1 March as Zero Discrimination Day. Admittedly, while governments worldwide have an obligation to eliminate all forms of discrimination stemming from their ratification of human rights treaties as well as constitutional protections and laws, achieving zero discrimination is a tough task. More narrowly, increasing focus has been put on ending discrimination in health settings. The 2016 United Nations Political Declaration on Ending AIDS called on member nations to commit to eliminating stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings 2. Following this pledge, the Global Partnership for Action to Eliminate All Forms of HIV‐Related Stigma and Discrimination was formed with the participation of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women), the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+), the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and non‐governmental partners 3. The Global Fund's Breaking Down Barriers Initiative has also targeted discrimination, funding interventions on stigma and discrimination reduction, training for healthcare providers on human rights and medical ethics, sensitization of law‐makers and law enforcement agents, as well as legal literacy, legal services, and law reform 4, interventions identified by UNAIDS as essential for every national AIDS response 5. A recent review found evidence of the impact of these types of human rights programmes (singly and combined) on HIV‐related outcomes for people living with HIV and key and vulnerable populations most at risk of HIV, ranging from decreased HIV risk behaviours to increased HIV testing to reduced incidence 6. The review examined research published between 2003 and 2015, but evidence of the positive impact of similar interventions both prior to and after these dates have also been published; for example, focusing on the training of health workers to reduce stigma 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and programmes promoting legal literacy and advocacy 13, 14. Advocacy targeting discriminatory laws, policies and practices have also been shown to be effective to removing barriers to HIV services 15, while evidence of the effectiveness of sensitizing law enforcement is increasing 16. Yet, adequately funded human rights programmes addressing discrimination operating at national scale are rare. More often, “stigma and discrimination” programmes are small or ad hoc and emphasize stigma 17, 18, 19, 20 but ignore discriminatory laws, policies and practices. They rely on messaging that calls on everyone to act together to end stigma, while ignoring mechanisms, such as the judiciary, that can identify and hold responsible those who discriminate against others. Making everyone responsible usually means that no one is accountable. To truly achieve zero discrimination in health settings, governments and health settings need to “own” the issue and commit to action. Accountability measures need to be created so that patients, such as Hannah, have a place to turn to complain about being denied care or treated poorly 21. Integrating paralegals in health facilities, creating ombudsman's offices, posting – and respecting – a patient's bill of rights in health facilities, combined with independent monitoring and civil society advocates, would begin to make Zero Discrimination Day real. Achieving an “end to AIDS”, and all health‐related sustainable development goals, requires a commitment to available, accessible, acceptable and quality care for all who need it. We know what discrimination in health settings looks like: delays in treatment, disrespectful care, verbal and physical abuse and outright denial of care. We know that programmes that train healthcare providers, that promote legal literacy and provide legal services and that reform discriminatory laws and policies and ensure legal protections are effective. We need government leaders willing to take a stand. Or 1 March will be just another day falling between International Mother Language Day and World Wildlife Day. Competing interests The author has no competing interest. Author's contribution JJA conceptualized, wrote and approved the article. Author's information Joseph J. Amon is the Director of Global Health and Director of the Jonathan Mann Global Health and Human Rights Initiative at the Dornsife School of Public Health at Drexel University. He serves as co‐chair of the UNAIDS Human Rights Reference Group on HIV and Human Rights and is a member of the Working Group on Monitoring and Evaluating Programmes to Remove Human Rights Barriers to HIV, TB and Malaria Services of the Global Fund.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                vannakit.r@gmail.com
                surangjanyam@yahoo.com
                danai@rsat.info
                mplus.foundation@gmail.com
                satayu.lapter@gmail.com
                supabhorn.p@prevention-trcarc.org
                rena.j@prevention-trcarc.org
                krittaporn@prevention-trcarc.org
                reshmie@prevention-trcarc.org
                nittaya.p@prevention-trcarc.org
                praphan.p@chula.ac.th
                Journal
                J Int AIDS Soc
                J Int AIDS Soc
                10.1002/(ISSN)1758-2652
                JIA2
                Journal of the International AIDS Society
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1758-2652
                09 June 2020
                June 2020
                : 23
                : 6 ( doiID: 10.1002/jia2.v23.6 )
                : e25535
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Independent Researcher Bangkok Thailand
                [ 2 ] Service Worker In Group Foundation (SWING) Bangkok Thailand
                [ 3 ] Rainbow Sky Association of Thailand (RSAT) Bangkok Thailand
                [ 4 ] Mplus Foundation Chiang Mai Thailand
                [ 5 ] CAREMAT Chiang Mai Thailand
                [ 6 ] Thai Red Cross AIDS Research Centre Bangkok Thailand
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Corresponding author: Ravipa Vannakit, Independent Researcher, 108/26 Pradipat Soi 19, Phayathai, Bangkok, Thailand. Tel: +66817181834. ( vannakit.r@ 123456gmail.com )

                [*]

                These authors have contributed equally to the work.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1699-1278
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6293-9422
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0036-3165
                Article
                JIA225535
                10.1002/jia2.25535
                7282496
                32515869
                be236612-408e-4fc2-89b3-e6aac210b1c9
                © 2020 The Authors. Journal of the International AIDS Society published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International AIDS Society

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 27 March 2020
                : 20 April 2020
                : 04 May 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 0, Pages: 3, Words: 1826
                Funding
                Funded by: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
                Categories
                Viewpoint
                Viewpoints
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                June 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.8.4 mode:remove_FC converted:09.06.2020

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                community,differentiated care,health systems,hiv care continuum,key and vulnerable populations,task shifting

                Comments

                Comment on this article