IntroductionHIV-related stigma and discrimination continue to hamper efforts to prevent new infections and engage people in HIV treatment, care and support programmes. The identification of effective interventions to reduce stigma and discrimination that can be integrated into national responses is crucial to the success of the global AIDS response.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies and reports that assessed the effectiveness of interventions to reduce HIV stigma and discrimination between 1 January 2002 and 1 March 2013. Databases searched for peer-reviewed articles included PubMed, Scopus, EBSCO Host –CINAHL Plus, Psycinfo, Ovid, Sociofile and Popline. Reports were obtained from the www.HIVAIDSClearinghouse.eu, USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse, UNESCO HIV and AIDS Education Clearinghouse, Google, WHO and UNAIDS. Ancestry searches for articles included in the systematic review were also conducted. Studies of any design that sought to reduce stigma as a primary or secondary objective and included pre- and post-intervention measures of stigma were included.ResultsOf 2368 peer-reviewed articles and reports identified, 48 were included in our review representing 14 different target populations in 28 countries. The majority of interventions utilized two or more strategies to reduce stigma and discrimination, and ten included structural or biomedical components. However, most interventions targeted a single socio-ecological level and a single domain of stigma. Outcome measures lacked uniformity and validity, making both interpretation and comparison of study results difficult. While the majority of studies were effective at reducing the aspects of stigma they measured, none assessed the influence of stigma or discrimination reduction on HIV-related health outcomes.ConclusionsOur review revealed considerable progress in the stigma-reduction field. However, critical challenges and gaps remain which are impeding the identification of effective stigma-reduction strategies that can be implemented by national governments on a larger scale. The development, validation, and consistent use of globally relevant scales of stigma and discrimination are a critical next step for advancing the field of research in this area. Studies comparing the effectiveness of different stigma-reduction strategies and studies assessing the influence of stigma reduction on key behavioural and biomedical outcomes are also needed to maximize biomedical prevention efforts.

This research tests the hypothesis that the presence (vs. absence) of organizational diversity structures causes high-status group members (Whites, men) to perceive organizations with diversity structures as procedurally fairer environments for underrepresented groups (racial minorities, women), even when it is clear that underrepresented groups have been unfairly disadvantaged within these organizations. Furthermore, this illusory sense of fairness derived from the mere presence of diversity structures causes high-status group members to legitimize the status quo by becoming less sensitive to discrimination targeted at underrepresented groups and reacting more harshly toward underrepresented group members who claim discrimination. Six experiments support these hypotheses in designs using 4 types of diversity structures (diversity policies, diversity training, diversity awards, idiosyncratically generated diversity structures from participants' own organizations) among 2 high-status groups in tests involving several types of discrimination (discriminatory promotion practices, adverse impact in hiring, wage discrimination). Implications of these experiments for organizational diversity and employment discrimination law are discussed.

A lack of interpretive power (i.e., the ability to understand individuals’ experiences and behaviors in relation to their cultural contexts) undermines psychology’s understanding of diverse psychological phenomena. Building interpretive power requires attending to cultural influences in research. We describe three characteristics of research that lacks interpretive power: normalizing and overgeneralizing from behaviors and processes of people in Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) contexts; making non-WEIRD people and processes invisible; and misapplying WEIRD findings in non-WEIRD contexts. We also describe research in which leveraging interpretive power prevented these negative consequences. Finally, using the culture-cycle framework, we outline a vision for creating culture change within psychology by implementing culture-conscious practices to guide the formation of research questions, empirical design, and data analysis and interpretation.

Three experiments tested the hypothesis that the mere presence (vs. absence) of diversity structures makes it more difficult for women to detect sexism. In Experiment 1, even when a company's hiring decisions disadvantaged women, women perceived the company as more procedurally just for women and were less supportive of sexism litigation when the company offered diversity training, compared to when it did not. In Experiment 2, women perceived a company as more procedurally just for women and as less likely to have engaged in sexism when the company offered diversity training, compared to when it did not. This effect was not moderated by women's endorsement of status legitimizing beliefs. In Experiment 3, women perceived a company as more procedurally just and less discriminatory when the company had been recognized for positive gender diversity practices compared to when it had not.Additionally, these effects were most pronounced among women who endorsed benevolent sexist beliefs and mitigated among those who rejected benevolent sexist beliefs. Together, these experiments demonstrate that diversity structures can make it difficult for women to detect and remedy discrimination, especially women who hold benevolent sexist beliefs.Keywords: sexism, diversity, discrimination, legitimacy, procedural justice, benevolent sexism A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT3It's Fair for Us: Diversity Structures Cause Women to Legitimize DiscriminationAs concerns about the treatment of legally protected groups (e.g., women, older employees, and minorities) remain prominent in American workplaces, many corporations have responded by implementing diversity structures (Dobbin, 2009;Kelly & Dobbin, 1998;Paluck, 2006). These structures take various forms such as diversity policies, diversity training programs, and affirmative action initiatives, but all profess to create equal opportunities and treatment for all employees (Edelman, Fuller, & Mara-Drita, 2001;Paluck, 2006). Empirical research, however, suggests that diversity structures often fail to achieve these egalitarian objectives, and many commonly employed diversity structures have little to no impact on increasing diversity (Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006). Despite the limited efficacy of many diversity structures, recent research shows that high status group members, such as White men, believe that the presence of diversity structures-even demonstrably ineffective diversity structures-signifies that organizations are indeed fair for underrepresented groups (Kaiser, Major, et al., 2013). That is, diversity structures create an illusion of fairness. Diversity Structures Create an Illusion of Fairness Among High Status GroupsIn a series of studies, Kaiser, Major, and their colleagues (2013) examined whether members of high status groups perceive companies with diversity structures as fairer for members of legally protected groups than companies without such structures, and whether they do so even when there is objective evidence that the companies' proc...

To date, there has been a global lack of data regarding the prevalence of conditions falling under the Inherited Retinal Diseases (IRD) classification, the impact on the individuals and families affected, and the cost burden to economies. The absence of an international patient registry, and equitable access to genetic testing, compounds this matter. The resulting incomplete knowledge of the impact of IRDs hinders the development and commissioning of clinical services, provision of treatments, and planning and implementation of clinical trials. Thus, there is a need for stronger evidence to support value for money to regulatory bodies for treatments approved, and progressing through clinical trials. To ensure a strategic approach to future research and service provision, it is necessary to learn more about the IRD landscape. This review highlights two recent cost-of-illness reports on the socioeconomic impact of 10 IRDs in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and the United Kingdom (UK), which demonstrate the comprehensive impact of IRDs on individuals affected, their families, friends and society. Total costs attributable to IRDs in the ROI were estimated to be £42.6 million in 2019, comprising economic (£28.8 million) and wellbeing costs (£13.8 million). Wellbeing costs were estimated using the World Health Organization (WHO) burden of disease methodology, a non-financial approach, where pain, suffering and premature mortality are measured in terms of disability-adjusted-lifeyears (DALYs). In the UK, wellbeing costs attributable to IRDs were £196.1 million, and economic costs were £327.2 million amounting to £523.3 million total costs in 2019. Accounting for over one-third of total costs, the wellbeing burden of persons affected by IRDs should be emphasized and factored into reimbursement processes for therapies and care pathways. This targeted review presents the most current and relevant data on IRD prevalence in the ROI and the UK, and the impacts (financial and non-financial) of IRDs in terms of diagnosis, wellbeing, employment, formal and informal care, health system costs, deadweight losses and issues surrounding payers and reimbursement. This review demonstrates IRD patients and their families have common issues including, the need for timely equitable access to genetic testing and counselling, equality in accessing employment, and a revision of the assessment process for reimbursement of therapies currently focused on the cost-of-illness to the healthcare system. This review reveals that IRD patients do not frequently engage the healthcare system and as such suggests a cost-of-illness model from a societal perspective may be a better format.