The suggested response was to launch community-wide education campaigns to inform people about the requirements of HIV/AIDS patients and refute misunderstandings that contribute to the disease’s stigma. The intervention is expected to increase awareness and lessen the fear of HIV transmission, one of the main factors contributing to AIDS stigma. The initial stage of the intervention involved writing and distributing flyers dispelling facts about HIV transmission that contradicted prevalent myths in the neighborhood. Nevertheless, several obstacles prevented the leaflets from being distributed. For instance, several organizations declined when asked to hand out the flyers, such as neighborhood churches and community centers. As a result, additional design modifications will be required before the intervention can be implemented. Only one location received the flyers; a neighborhood medical care consented to post them in one of its waiting rooms. Because individuals either did not see the leaflets or did not want to read them, this distribution method needed to have been more successful.
Putting Intervention into Practice
So far, the intervention has had virtually little impact. Although it can be presumed that the number of persons who read the pamphlets reduced the stigmatization of AIDS patients, the primary intervention strategy lacked a thorough assessment plan for the stigmatization. On the other hand, the outcomes that were intended to be monitored, such as health outcomes, have long-term effects and will take much longer to become noticeable (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019). Ultimately, several improvements must be made to improve the effectiveness of the intervention (Kagaayi et al., 2019). Before approaching new facilities for the distribution of leaflets, distribution channels must be assessed. A survey of the readers should be conducted to see whether the information impacted how they perceived and treated AIDS patients to examine the success of the intervention in reducing stigma (Kagaayi et al., 2019). With these changes, the intervention will probably reduce community stigma.
The evaluation of risks and the intervention
AIDS patients who experience severe stigma in the community were the main target of the intervention. According to studies, stigmatizing people with AIDS affects people everywhere, including in the United States (Kagaayi et al., 2019). Individuals with AIDS are usually thought of as having weak morals who contracted the illness via promiscuous behavior, drug use, and unsafe sexual practices. For instance, stigmatization and discrimination towards PLWHA are widespread worldwide but vary significantly by population. For example, the study found that discrimination against AIDS or HIV patients is more likely to occur among young people, men, married couples, and persons with lower levels of education (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019). Around 70% of those surveyed said they would care for a family member with HIV or AIDS (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019, p. 121). On the other hand, persons with higher incomes and formal educations were less likely to stigmatize PLWHA.
Stigmatization is still a problem in the United States and impacts every area of HIV and AIDS sufferers’ life. Even in medical facilities, staff members may experience stigma, which affects the quality of care (Bandera et al., 2018). For example, one in four medical staff members would test a patient for HIV without consent, and more than 40% of medical care staff members concur that people with HIV do not care if they infect others (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019, p. 121). The experiment demonstrated that stigmatization negatively affects HIV/AIDS patients (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019). Additionally, it poses a hazard to the community since it prevents patients from telling their partners and family members about their status and makes it harder for them to adhere to treatment.
Possibilities and limitations
The patients’ determination to stick with ART and tell their sexual partners about their status was the key factor contributing to the aggregate’s strength. Four out of the five respondents said they were undergoing ART, and every participant said they had told their partners about their situation (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019). The willingness of the participants to learn more about preventing transmission and follow safe sex guidelines to reduce the likelihood of the virus spreading further was another asset (Bandera et al., 2018). The participants in mixed-status relationships attested that they disclosed their status to the other person and that the other person underwent pre-exposure prophylaxis therapy (PrEP) before engaging in intimate activities (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019). All group members consistently used condoms, even when engaging in less risky sexual behaviors like oral sex.
Four of the five patients said they regularly screen for additional STDs and encourage their partners to do the same. In the aggregate, nevertheless, several flaws could still be seen. For instance, three patients withheld information about their HIV status from their friends, family, and coworkers out of concern about prejudice and stigmatization (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019). However, the highly minimal danger of HIV transmission through casual contact, friends, and family support may assist patients in dealing with their melancholy, low self-esteem, stigma, and prejudice. Consider the correlation between perceived social support and reduced stigma, decreased depression symptoms, and improved quality of life.
Risk evaluation and diagnosis
The participants concurred that stigmatization was one of the biggest dangers to their quality of life and mental health. Moreover, research indicates that AIDS and HIV-positive patients can suffer significantly from societal stigma (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019). Having a stigmatized identity due to society or one’s self-perception as a member of a stigmatized group has detrimental effects on those who live with HIV/AIDS, including more excellent rates of anxiety and despair (Bandera et al., 2018). Furthermore, according to other studies, stigma causes people to have low self-esteem, which makes it harder for them to deal with their illness and lead satisfying lives. Another concern HIV and AIDS patients face in today’s culture is social alienation. As a result, they may experience more rejection in social and professional settings and receive fewer social support services. High unemployment rates among HIV and AIDS patients are caused by some variables, including perceived inadequacy in dealing with HIV-positive people and fear of spreading the disease (Nyblade et al., 2018). The stigma among community health workers may also harm the overall medical health of the population (Nyblade et al., 2018). For instance, 50% of healthcare organizations had PLWHA-preventative measures (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019, p. 123). Almost 16% of the health professionals polled said HIV-positive individuals should be ashamed of their condition (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019, p. 123). The aggregate’s mental and physical health is in danger due to combining these elements.
A third of those surveyed claimed to have witnessed a healthcare professional making derogatory remarks about HIV patients and taking extreme precautions, such as wearing two pairs of gloves (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019, p. 123). More than half of the medical staff expressed reluctance to treat HIV-positive patients, and 20% said they had seen a doctor at the hospital treat patients with HIV with less care than other patients (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019, p. 125). Impaired social connection is hence the aggregate’s principal diagnosis. Due to potential barriers to accessing appropriate care, the participants also demonstrate a risk of inadequate healthcare maintenance. Moreover, the possibility of a disordered personal identity due to self-stigma exists (Mustanski et al., 2018). Every patient exhibits the desire for improved comfort and communication.
Aggregate care protocol
None of the subjects currently have any serious medical issues that require attention. The plan’s first step is to inform him about the opportunities for anonymous services and to entice him to go to the medical facility that offers ART and has vital confidentiality and non-discrimination policies in place (Nyblade et al., 2018). The community’s stigma must be reduced, and the subjects’ mental health must be addressed to address the remaining issues. For instance, it would be beneficial to refer everyone to a licensed therapist who can offer guidance on dealing with the illness and having a fulfilled life (Mustanski et al., 2018). A significant problem is the apparent lack of social support (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019). To avoid potential social isolation, the therapist could advise the patients on how to disclose their HIV status to friends and family appropriately.
Nevertheless, reducing stigma within the community is the strategy’s primary objective. This can be accomplished by handing out informational pamphlets that refute popular misconceptions about HIV with reliable medical information (Mustanski et al., 2018). For instance, knowledge of HIV transmission will lessen the stigmatization of HIV/AIDS patients and their fear of them (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019). This would improve the participants’ quality of life and benefit how they perceive themselves and their ability to access care. Such treatments would lower the prevalence of HIV in the community, as stigmatization is a significant cause of people hiding their status from others, which could lead to unintended transmission.
Execution
Referring subjects to a mental health professional was the first intervention that was generally used. The therapist was selected based on her prior expertise in treating HIV-positive individuals. Patients were given the specialist’s contact information, and before the visit, informed consent was requested to discuss the main issues and communication with the therapist. The absence of social support and the individuals’ hesitation to tell friends and family they were HIV positive were the main points raised. The first consultations were attended individually by the participants. Increasing HIV awareness is a different type of intervention (Mustanski et al., 2018). Many local establishments, including medical facilities, churches, and community organizations, were to distribute leaflets with medical information on HIV prevalence and transmission (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019). However, most facilities would have preferred to hand out the flyers, significantly impacting the implementation procedure. The next stage of the intervention will involve approaching additional local healthcare professionals to get them involved in the initiative and conducting a poll of the intended audience to gauge how valuable the information is.
Assessment
The initial stage of the intervention process was generally relatively successful. Most subjects concurred during the follow-up meeting that the session with the mental health professional was beneficial; it gave them insight into how to deal with their diagnosis and how to enlist the assistance of friends and family. A critical element that may help in the future to lessen poor social interaction and avoid social isolation is social support (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019). Social aid has also been shown to improve the quality of life for those with HIV or AIDS and reduce their risk of depression (Hosek & Pettifor, 2019). On the other hand, because the suggested remedy had not yet shown any benefits, the problem of stigmatization in the community has not yet been addressed.
Conclusion
In conclusion, ultimately, the experiment demonstrated the real-world effects of HIV and AIDS stigma in the neighborhood. Examining earlier research revealed potential implications of the problem, but speaking with patients let me realize that our community is genuinely affected by the stigmatization issue. To achieve the intended result, which includes lowering stigma and encouraging social involvement of those with HIV or AIDS, the intervention must be further developed.
References
Bandera, A., De Benedetto, I., Bozzi, G., & Gori, A. (2018). Altered gut microbiome composition in HIV infection: causes, effects and potential intervention. Current opinion in HIV and AIDS, 13(1), 73-80. Web.
Hosek, S., & Pettifor, A. (2019). HIV prevention interventions for adolescents. Current HIV/AIDS Reports, 16, 120-128. Web.
Kagaayi, J., Chang, L. W., Ssempijja, V., Grabowski, M. K., Ssekubugu, R., Nakigozi, G., Kigozi, G., Serwadda, D. M., Gray, R. H., Nalugoda, F., Sewankambo, N. K., Nelson, L., Mills, L. A., Kabatesi, D., Alamo, S., Kennedy, C. E., Tobian, A. A. R., Santelli, J. S., Ekström, A. M., … Reynolds, S. J. (2019). Impact of combination HIV interventions on HIV incidence in hyperendemic fishing communities in Uganda: A prospective cohort study. The Lancet HIV, 6(10), e680-e687. Web.
Mustanski, B., Parsons, J. T., Sullivan, P. S., Madkins, K., Rosenberg, E., & Swann, G. (2018). Biomedical and Behavioral Outcomes of Keep It Up!: An eHealth HIV Prevention Program RCT. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 55(2), 151–158. Web.
Nyblade, L., Srinivasan, K., Mazur, A., Raj, T., Patil, D. S., Devadass, D.,… & Ekstrand, M. L. (2018). HIV stigma reduction for health facility staff: development of a blended-learning intervention. Frontiers in public health, 6, 165. Web.