Measuring intersectional HIV, sexual diversity, and gender non-conformity stigma among healthcare workers in Ghana: scale validation and correlates of stigma.

BACKGROUND: Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at heightened risk for HIV acquisition, yet they may delay or avoid HIV testing due to intersectional stigma experienced at the healthcare facility (HCF). Few validated scales exist to measure intersectional stigma, particularly amongst HCF staff. We developed the Healthcare Facility Staff Intersectional Stigma Scale (HCF-ISS) and assessed factors associated with stigma in Ghana. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data from HCF staff involved in a study testing a multi-level intervention to reduce intersectional stigma experienced by MSM. Data are from eight HCFs in Ghana (HCF Staff n = 200). The HCF-ISS assesses attitudes and beliefs towards same-sex relationships, people living with HIV (PLWH) and gender non-conformity. Exploratory factor analysis assessed HCF-ISS construct validity and Cronbach's alphas assessed the reliability of the scale. Multivariable regression analyses assessed factors associated with intersectional stigma. RESULTS: Factor analysis suggested an 18-item 3-factor scale including: Comfort with Intersectional Identities in the Workplace (6 items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.71); Beliefs about Gender and Sexuality Norms (7 items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.72); and Beliefs about PLWH (5 items, Cronbach's alpha = 0.68). Having recent clients who engage in same-gender sex was associated with greater comfort with intersectional identities but more stigmatizing beliefs about PLWH. Greater religiosity was associated with stigmatizing beliefs. Infection control training was associated with less stigma towards PLWH and greater comfort with intersectional identities. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving the goal of ending AIDS by 2030 requires eliminating barriers that undermine access to HIV prevention and treatment for MSM, including HCF intersectional stigma. The HCF-ISS provides a measurement tool to support intersectional stigma-reduction interventions.

Multi-level manifestations of sexual stigma among men with same-gender sexual experience in Ghana.

Sexual stigma and discrimination toward men who have same-gender sexual experiences are present across the globe. In Ghana, same-gender sexual desires and relationships are stigmatized, and the stigma is sanctioned through both social and legal processes. Such stigma negatively influences health and other material and social aspects of daily life for men who have sex with men (MSM). However, there is evidence that stigma at the interpersonal level can intersect with stigma that may be operating simultaneously at other levels. Few studies provide a comprehensive qualitative assessment of the multi-level sexual stigma derived from the direct narratives of men with same-gender sexual experience. To help fill this gap on sexual stigma, we qualitatively investigated [1] what was the range of sexual stigma manifestations, and [2] how sexual stigma manifestations were distributed across socioecological levels in a sample of Ghanaian MSM. From March to September 2020, we conducted eight focus group discussions (FGDs) with MSM about their experiences with stigma from Accra and Kumasi, Ghana. Data from the FGDs were subjected to qualitative content analysis. We identified a range of eight manifestations of sexual stigma: (1) gossiping and outing; (2) verbal abuse and intrusive questioning; (3) non-verbal judgmental gestures; (4) societal, cultural, and religious blaming and shaming; (5) physical abuse; (6) poor-quality services; (7) living in constant fear and stigma avoidance; and (8) internal ambivalence and guilt about sexual behavior. Sexual stigma manifestations were unevenly distributed across socioecological levels. Our findings are consistent with those of existing literature documenting that, across Africa, and particularly in Ghana, national laws and religious institutions continue to drive stigma against MSM. Fundamental anti-homosexual sentiments along with beliefs associating homosexuality with foreign cultures and immorality drive the stigmatization of MSM. Stigma experienced at all socioecological levels has been shown to impact both the mental and sexual health of MSM. Deeper analysis is needed to understand more of the lived stigma experiences of MSM to develop appropriate stigma-reduction interventions. Additionally, more community-level stigma research and interventions are needed that focus on the role of family and peers in stigma toward MSM in Ghana.

Using a mixed-methods approach to adapt an HIV stigma reduction to address intersectional stigma faced by men who have sex with men in Ghana.

INTRODUCTION: In Ghana, men who have sex with men (MSM) are estimated to be 11 times more likely to be living with HIV than the general population. Stigmas at the intersection of HIV, same-sex and gender non-conformity are potential key drivers behind this outsized HIV disease burden. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are essential to HIV prevention, care and treatment and can also be sources of stigma for people living with HIV and MSM. This article describes the process and results of adapting an evidence-based HIV stigma-reduction HCW training curriculum to address HIV, same-sex and gender non-conformity stigma among HCWs in the Greater Accra and Ashanti regions, Ghana. METHODS: Six steps were implemented from March 2020 to September 2021: formative research (in-depth interviews with stigma-reduction trainers [n = 8] and MSM living with HIV [n = 10], and focus group discussions with HCWs [n = 8] and MSM [n = 8]); rapid data analysis to inform a first-draft adapted curriculum; a stakeholder adaptation workshop; triangulation of adaptation with HCW baseline survey data (N = 200) and deeper analysis of formative data; iterative discussions with partner organizations for further refinement; external expert review; and final adaptation with the teams of HCWs and MSM being trained to deliver the curriculum. RESULTS: Key themes emerging under four immediately actionable drivers of health facility intersectional stigma (awareness, fear, attitudes and facility environment) informed the adaptation of the HIV training curriculum. Based on the findings, existing curriculum exercises were placed in one of four categories: (1) Expand-existing exercises that needed modifications to incorporate deeper MSM and gender non-conformity stigma content; (2) Generate-new exercises to fill gaps; (3) Maintain-exercises to keep with no modifications; and (4) Eliminate-exercises that could be dropped given training time constraints. New exercises were developed to address gender norms, the belief that being MSM is a mental illness and stigmatizing attitudes towards MSM. CONCLUSIONS: Getting to the "heart of stigma" requires understanding and responding to both HIV and other intersecting stigma targeting sexual and gender diversity. Findings from this study can inform health facility stigma reduction programming not only for MSM, but also for other populations affected by HIV-related and intersectional stigma in Ghana and beyond.

A total facility approach to reducing HIV stigma in health facilities: implementation process and lessons learned.

OBJECTIVES: To describe development and implementation of a three-stage 'total facility' approach to reducing health facility HIV stigma in Ghana and Tanzania, to facilitate replication. DESIGN: HIV stigma in healthcare settings hinders the HIV response and can occur during any interaction between client and staff, between staff, and within institutional processes and structures. Therefore, the design focuses on multiple socioecological levels within a health facility and targets all levels of staff (clinical and nonclinical). METHODS: The approach is grounded in social cognitive theory principles and interpersonal or intergroup contact theory that works to combat stigma by creating space for interpersonal interactions, fostering empathy, and building efficacy for stigma reduction through awareness, skills, and knowledge building as well as through joint action planning for changes needed in the facility environment. The approach targets actionable drivers of stigma among health facility staff: fear of HIV transmission, awareness of stigma, attitudes, and health facility environment. RESULTS: The results are the three-stage process of formative research, capacity building, and integration into facility structures and processes. Key implementation lessons learned included the importance of formative data to catalyze action and shape intervention activities, using participatory training methodologies, involving facility management throughout, having staff, and clients living with HIV facilitate trainings, involving a substantial proportion of staff, mixing staff cadres and departments in training groups, and integrating stigma-reduction into existing structures and processes. CONCLUSION: Addressing stigma in health facilities is critical and this approach offers a feasible, well accepted method of doing so.

Results from a difference-in-differences evaluation of health facility HIV and key population stigma-reduction interventions in Ghana.

INTRODUCTION: Stigma undermines all aspects of a comprehensive HIV response, as reflected in recent global initiatives for stigma-reduction. Yet a commensurate response to systematically tackle stigma within country responses has not yet occurred, which may be due to the lack of sufficient evidence documenting evaluated stigma-reduction interventions. With stigma present in all life spheres, health facilities offer a logical starting point for developing and expanding stigma reduction interventions. This study evaluates the impact of a "total facility" stigma-reduction intervention on the drivers and manifestations of stigma and discrimination among health facility staff in Ghana. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of a total facility stigma-reduction intervention by comparing five intervention to five comparable non-intervention health facilities in Ghana. Interventions began in September 2017. Data collection was in June 2017 and April 2018. The primary outcomes were composite indicators for three stigma drivers, self-reported stigmatizing avoidance behaviour, and observed discrimination. The principal intervention variable was whether the respondent worked at an intervention or comparison facility. We estimated intervention effects as differences-in-differences in each outcome, further adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RESULTS: We observed favourable intervention effects for all outcome domains except for stigmatizing attitudes. Preferring not to provide services to people living with HIV (PLHIV) or a key population member improved 11.1% more in intervention than comparison facility respondents (95% CI 3.2 to 19.0). Other significant improvements included knowledge of policies to protect against discrimination (difference-in-differences = 20.4%; 95% CI 12.7 to 28.0); belief that discrimination would be punished (11.2%; 95% CI 0.2 to 22.3); and knowledge of and belief in the adequacy of infection control policies (17.6%; 95% CI 8.3 to 26.9). Reported observation of stigma and discrimination incidents fell by 7.4 percentage points more among intervention than comparison facility respondents, though only marginally significant in the IPTW-adjusted model (p = 0.06). Respondents at intervention facilities were 19.0% (95% CI 12.2 to 25.8) more likely to report that staff behaviour towards PLHIV had improved over the last year than those at comparison facilities. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide a foundation for scaling up health facility stigma-reduction within national HIV responses, though they should be accompanied by rigorous implementation science to ensure ongoing learning and adaptation for maximum effectiveness and long-term impact.