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.

No abstract

BackgroundThe levels of coverage of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment and prevention services needed to change the trajectory of the HIV epidemic among key populations, including gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) and sex workers, have consistently been shown to be limited by stigma.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to propose an agenda for the goals and approaches of a sexual behavior stigma surveillance effort for key populations, with a focus on collecting surveillance data from 4 groups: (1) members of key population groups themselves (regardless of HIV status), (2) people living with HIV (PLHIV) who are also members of key populations, (3) members of nonkey populations, and (4) health workers.MethodsWe discuss strengths and weaknesses of measuring multiple different types of stigma including perceived, anticipated, experienced, perpetrated, internalized, and intersecting stigma as measured among key populations themselves, as well as attitudes or beliefs about key populations as measured among other groups.ResultsWith the increasing recognition of the importance of stigma, consistent and validated stigma metrics for key populations are needed to monitor trends and guide immediate action. Evidence-based stigma interventions may ultimately be the key to overcoming the barriers to coverage and retention in life-saving antiretroviral-based HIV prevention and treatment programs for key populations.ConclusionsMoving forward necessitates the integration of validated stigma scales in routine HIV surveillance efforts, as well as HIV epidemiologic and intervention studies focused on key populations, as a means of tracking progress toward a more efficient and impactful HIV response.

Introduction In June 2021, United Nations (UN) Member States committed to ambitious targets for scaling up community-led responses by 2025 toward meeting the goals of ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030. These targets build on UN Member States 2016 commitments to ensure that 30% of HIV testing and treatment programmes are community-led by 2030. At its current pace, the world is not likely to meet these nor other global HIV targets, as evidenced by current epidemiologic trends. The COVID-19 pandemic threatens to further slow momentum made to date. The purpose of this paper is to review available evidence on the comparative advantages of community-led HIV responses that can better inform policy making towards getting the world back on track. Methods We conducted a scoping review to gather available evidence on peer- and community-led HIV responses. Using UNAIDS’ definition of ‘community-led’ and following PRISMA guidelines, we searched peer-reviewed literature published from January 1982 through September 2020. We limited our search to articles reporting findings from randomized controlled trials as well as from quasi-experimental, prospective, pre/post-test evaluation, and cross-sectional study designs. The overall goals of this scoping review were to gather available evidence on community-led responses and their impact on HIV outcomes, and to identify key concepts that can be used to quickly inform policy, practice, and research. Findings Our initial search yielded 279 records. After screening for relevance and conducting cross-validation, 48 articles were selected. Most studies took place in the global south (n = 27) and a third (n = 17) involved youth. Sixty-five percent of articles (n = 31) described the comparative advantage of peer- and community-led direct services, e.g., prevention and education (n = 23) testing, care, and treatment programs (n = 8). We identified more than 40 beneficial outcomes linked to a range of peer- and community-led HIV activities. They include improved HIV-related knowledge, attitudes, intentions, self-efficacy, risk behaviours, risk appraisals, health literacy, adherence, and viral suppression. Ten studies reported improvements in HIV service access, quality, linkage, utilization, and retention resulting from peer- or community-led programs or initiatives. Three studies reported structural level changes, including positive influences on clinic wait times, treatment stockouts, service coverage, and exclusionary practices. Conclusions and recommendations Findings from our scoping review underscore the comparative advantage of peer- and community-led HIV responses. Specifically, the evidence from the published literature leads us to recommend, where possible, that prevention programs, especially those intended for people living with and disproportionately affected by HIV, be peer- and community-led. In addition, treatment services should strive to integrate specific peer- and community-led components informed by differentiated care models. Future research is needed and should focus on generating additional quantitative evidence on cost effectiveness and on the synergistic effects of bundling two or more peer- and community-led interventions.