Frontline AIDS, Secretariat, Preece House, 91-101 Davigdor Rd, Brighton, Hove, BN3 1RE, UK.
Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Barnett House, 32 -37 Wellington Square, Oxford, OX1 2ER, UK.
BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Mar 5;19(1):210. doi: 10.1186/s12879-019-3704-1.
BACKGROUND: Internalized HIV stigma is a public health concern as it can compromise HIV prevention, care and treatment. This paper has two aims. First, it highlights the urgent need for research evidence on internalized HIV stigma based on critical knowledge gaps. Here, critical knowledge gaps were identified based on most up-to-date systematic review-level evidence on internalized stigma related to HIV and mental health difficulties. Secondly, the paper calls for a shift in focus of internalized HIV stigma research, one that moves beyond psychological frameworks to integrate social, structural and intersectional conceptualizations of stigma. This part of the paper reviews the evolution of stigma theory since Goffman's 1963 seminal work - which defined stigma - to present. MAIN TEXT: Despite studies consistently suggesting that internalized HIV stigma is more prevalent than enacted stigma, there is little evidence of well-established programs to address it. In addition to this, considerable gaps in basic knowledge about the drivers of internalized HIV stigma hamper the development of an evidence-based response to the problem. The limited intervention and epidemiological research on the topic treats internalized HIV stigma as a purely psychological phenomenon. The second part of the paper provides arguments for studying internalized HIV stigma as a function of social and structural forces: (1) Individual-level interventions for internalized HIV stigma are rooted in out-dated theoretical assumptions; (2) From an ethics point of view, it could be argued that individual-level interventions rely on a victim-centric approach to a public health problem; (3) Social and structural approaches to internalized HIV stigma must be explored due to the high opportunity cost associated with small-scale individual-level interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Critical gaps in intervention and epidemiological research in internalized HIV stigma remain. There has been an absence of a shared, sound theoretical understanding of internalized HIV stigma as a manifestation of social and structural factors. This commentary sought to stimulate a dialogue to remedy this absence. Future research should take into account ethical considerations, the evolution of stigma theory over the past five decades, intersectionality and opportunity cost when framing hypotheses, developing theories of change and designing interventions.
背景:内化的 HIV 耻辱感是一个公共卫生关注点,因为它可能会影响 HIV 的预防、护理和治疗。本文有两个目的。首先,它强调了基于关键知识空白,迫切需要关于内化的 HIV 耻辱感的研究证据。在这里,根据与 HIV 和心理健康问题相关的耻辱感的最新系统评价水平证据,确定了关键知识空白。其次,本文呼吁将内化的 HIV 耻辱感研究的重点从心理框架转移,纳入耻辱感的社会、结构和交叉概念化。本文的这一部分回顾了自 1963 年 Goffman 的开创性著作以来耻辱感理论的演变,以展示当前的情况。
主要内容:尽管研究一直表明,内化的 HIV 耻辱感比外化的耻辱感更为普遍,但几乎没有证据表明有既定的方案来解决这个问题。除此之外,关于内化的 HIV 耻辱感驱动因素的基本知识存在相当大的差距,这阻碍了针对该问题的循证应对措施的制定。关于该主题的有限干预和流行病学研究将内化的 HIV 耻辱感视为纯粹的心理现象。本文的第二部分提供了将内化的 HIV 耻辱感作为社会和结构力量的函数进行研究的理由:(1)针对内化的 HIV 耻辱感的个体干预措施根植于过时的理论假设;(2)从伦理角度来看,可以认为个体干预措施依赖于一种以受害者为中心的方法来解决公共卫生问题;(3)由于与小规模个体干预相关的高机会成本,必须探索针对内化的 HIV 耻辱感的社会和结构方法。
结论:内化的 HIV 耻辱感的干预和流行病学研究仍然存在关键差距。缺乏对作为社会和结构因素表现的内化的 HIV 耻辱感的共同、合理的理论理解。本文旨在激发对话,以弥补这一不足。未来的研究在提出假设、制定变革理论和设计干预措施时,应考虑到伦理考虑、过去五十年耻辱感理论的演变、交叉性和机会成本。
J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2015
AIDS Educ Prev. 2023-4
Early Hum Dev. 2020-11
Am J Public Health. 2017-6
Cult Health Sex. 2017-12