Introduction There is strong global commitment to eliminate HIV‐related stigma, and work in this area continues to evolve. Wide variation exists in frameworks and measures used. Methods Building on the existing knowledge syntheses, we carried out a systematic review to identify frameworks and measures aiming to understand or assess internalized stigma, stigma and discrimination in healthcare, and in law and policy. The review addressed two questions: Which conceptual frameworks have been proposed to assess internalized stigma, stigma and discrimination experienced in healthcare settings, and stigma and discrimination entrenched in national laws and policies? Which measures of these different types of stigma and discrimination have been proposed and what are their descriptive properties? Searches, completed on 6 May 2021, cover publications from 2008 onwards. The review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021249348), the protocol incorporated stakeholder input, and the data are available in the Systematic Review Data Repository. Results and discussion Sixty‐nine frameworks and 50 measures met the inclusion criteria. Critical appraisal figures and detailed evidence tables summarize these resources. We established a compendium of frameworks and a catalogue of measures of HIV‐related stigma and discrimination. Seventeen frameworks and 10 measures addressed at least two of our focus domains, with least attention to stigma and discrimination in law and policy. The lack of common definitions and variability in scope and structure of HIV‐related frameworks and measures creates challenges in understanding what is being addressed and measured, both in relation to stigma and efforts to mitigate or reduce its harmful effects. Having comparable data is essential for tracking change over time within and between interventions. Conclusions This systematic review provides an evidence base of current understandings of HIV‐related stigma and discrimination and how further conceptual clarification and increased adaptation of existing tools might help overcome challenges across the HIV care continuum. With people living with HIV at the centre, experts from different stakeholder groups could usefully collaborate to guide a more streamlined approach for the field. This can help to achieve global targets and understand, measure and help mitigate the impact of different types of HIV‐related stigma on people's health and quality of life.

The author reviews various conceptions of autonomy to show that humans are actually not autonomous, strictly speaking. He argues for a need to rethink the personal autonomy approaches to HIV testing in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries. HIV/AIDS has remained a leading cause of disease burden in SSA. It is important to bring this disease burden under control, especially given the availability of current effective antiretroviral regimens in low-and middle-income countries. In most SSA countries the ethic or value of personal autonomy or self-determination is promoted as primary in HIV testing decisionmaking. SSA policymakers have an ontological and moral duty to adopt HIV testing policies that reflect human and medical realities, relationships, local contexts, and respect human rights for both individuals and others who are affected by HIV in society. Without rethinking the value of autonomy in HIV testing decision-making, the article cautions that attainment of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 and the UNAIDS fast-track strategy that explicitly call to end the epidemic by 2030 will not be feasible for SSA.

No abstract

A strong global commitment exists to eliminate HIV-related stigma and discrimination, and multiple strategies to reduce or eliminate stigma and discrimination have been tried. Using a PICOTS framework and applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, we undertook a systematic review to determine the success of interventions aiming to address internalized stigma, stigma and discrimination in healthcare, and at the legal or policy level, and to identify their critical success factors. Random effects meta-analyses summarized results wherever possible. We carried out a component analysis to identify and characterize successful interventions. Internalized stigma interventions were diverse: across all studies, we found a reduction of stigma but it was not statistically significant [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.56; confidence interval (CI) 0.31-1.02; 17 studies). For interventions to address stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings, effect estimates varied considerably but most studies showed positive effects (SMD 0.71; CI 0.60-0.84, 8 studies). Boosted regression analyses found that a combined approach comprising education, counseling, community participation, support person, and access to a HIV specialist often yielded success. Studies of efforts to address stigma and discrimination through law and policy documented, mostly qualitatively, the effect of court cases and directives. Across a range of settings and populations, promising interventions have been identified that, through diverse pathways, have positively impacted the types of stigma and discrimination studied. This evidence base must be built upon and brought to scale to help reach global HIV-related targets and, most importantly, improve the health and quality of life of people with HIV.

Introduction HIV-related internalized stigma remains a major contributor to challenges experienced when accessing and providing HIV diagnosis, care and treatment services. It is a key barrier to effective prevention, treatment and care programs. This study investigated experiences of internalized stigma among people living with HIV in Malawi. Methodology A participatory cross-sectional study design of participants from eight districts across the three administrative regions of Malawi. Data were collected using Key Informant Interviews (n = 22), Focus Group Discussions (n = 4) and life-stories (n = 10). NVIVO 12 software was used for coding applying both deductive and inductive techniques. Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework was used as a theoretical and analytical framework during data analysis. Results Overt forms of stigma and discrimination were more recognizable to people living with HIV while latent forms, including internalized stigma, remained less identifiable and with limited approaches for mitigation. In this context, manifest forms of HIV-related stigma intersected with latent forms of stigma as people living with HIV often experienced both forms of stigma concurrently. The youths, HIV mixed-status couples and individuals newly initiated on ART were more susceptible to internalized stigma due to their lack of coping mechanism, unavailability of mitigation structures, and lack of information. Broadly, people living with HIV found it difficult to identify and describe internalized stigma and this affected their ability to recognize it and determine an appropriate course of action to deal with it. Conclusion Understanding the experiences of internalized stigma is key to developing targeted and context specific innovative solutions to this health problem.