The current work evaluates the HIV Stigma Framework in a sample of 95 people living with HIV recruited from an inner-city clinic in the Bronx, NY. To determine the contributions of each HIV stigma mechanism (internalized, enacted, and anticipated) on indicators of health and well-being, we conducted an interviewer-delivered survey and abstracted data from medical records. Results suggest that internalized stigma associates significantly with indicators of affective (i.e., helplessness regarding, acceptance of, and perceived benefits of HIV) and behavioral (i.e., days in medical care gaps and ARV non-adherence) health and well-being. Enacted and anticipated stigma associate with indicators of physical health and well-being (i.e., CD4 count less than 200 and chronic illness comorbidity respectively). By differentiating between HIV stigma mechanisms, researchers may gain a more nuanced understanding of how HIV stigma impacts health and well-being and better inform targeted interventions to improve specific outcomes among people living with HIV.

Experiences of stigma from others among people with a history of drug addiction are understudied in comparison to the strength of stigma associated with drug addiction. Work that has studied these experiences has primarily focused on stigma experienced from healthcare workers specifically even though stigma is often experienced from other sources as well. Because stigma has important implications for the mental health and recovery efforts of people in treatment, it is critical to better understand these experiences of stigma. Therefore, we characterize drug addiction stigma from multiple sources using qualitative methodology to advance understandings of how drug addiction stigma is experienced among methadone maintenance therapy patients and from whom. Results demonstrate that methadone maintenance therapy patients experience prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination from friends and family, coworkers and employers, healthcare workers, and others. Discussion highlights similarities and differences in stigma experienced from these sources.

Background Substance use disorders consistently rank among the most stigmatized conditions worldwide. Thus, substance use stigma fosters health inequities among persons with substance use disorders and remains a key barrier to successful screening and treatment efforts. Current efforts to measure substance use stigma are limited. This study aims to advance measurement efforts by drawing on stigma theory to develop and evaluate the Substance Use Stigma Mechanisms Scale (SU-SMS). The SU-SMS was designed to capture enacted, anticipated, and internalized substance use stigma mechanisms among persons with current and past substance use disorders, and distinguish between key stigma sources most likely to impact this target population. Methods This study was a cross-sectional evaluation of the validity, reliability, and generalizability of the SU-SMS across two independent samples with diverse substance use and treatment histories. Results Findings support the structural and construct validity of the SU-SMS, suggesting the scale was able to capture enacted, anticipated, and internalized stigma as distinct stigma experiences. It also further differentiated between two distinct stigma sources (family and healthcare providers). Analysis of these mechanisms and psychosocial metrics suggests that the scale is also associated with other health-related outcomes. Furthermore, the SU-SMS demonstrated high levels of internal reliability and generalizability across two independent samples of persons with diverse substance use disorders and treatment histories. Conclusion The SU-SMS may serve as a valuable tool for better understanding the processes through which substance use stigma serves to undermine key health behaviors and outcomes among persons with substance use disorders.

Alcohol use is highly prevalent globally with numerous negative consequences to human health, including HIV progression, in people living with HIV (PLH). The HIV continuum of care, or treatment cascade, represents a sequence of targets for intervention that can result in viral suppression, which ultimately benefits individuals and society. The extent to which alcohol impacts each step in the cascade, however, has not been systematically examined. International targets for HIV treatment as prevention aim for 90 % of PLH to be diagnosed, 90 % of them to be prescribed with antiretroviral therapy (ART), and 90 % to achieve viral suppression; currently, only 20 % of PLH are virally suppressed. This systematic review, from 2010 through May 2015, found 53 clinical research papers examining the impact of alcohol use on each step of the HIV treatment cascade. These studies were mostly cross-sectional or cohort studies and from all income settings. Most (77 %) found a negative association between alcohol consumption on one or more stages of the treatment cascade. Lack of consistency in measurement, however, reduced the ability to draw consistent conclusions. Nonetheless, the strong negative correlations suggest that problematic alcohol consumption should be targeted, preferably using evidence-based behavioral and pharmacological interventions, to indirectly increase the proportion of PLH achieving viral suppression, to achieve treatment as prevention mandates, and to reduce HIV transmission.

Cognitive impairment among populations at risk for HIV poses a significant barrier to managing risk behaviors. The impact of HIV and several cofactors, including substance abuse and mental illness, on cognitive function is discussed in the context of HIV risk behaviors, medication adherence, and risk-reduction interventions. Literature suggests that cognitive impairment is intertwined in a close, reciprocal relationship with both risk behaviors and medication adherence. Not only do increased risk behaviors and suboptimal adherence exacerbate cognitive impairment, but cognitive impairment also reduces the effectiveness of interventions aimed at optimizing medication adherence and reducing risk. In order to be effective, risk-reduction interventions must therefore take into account the impact of cognitive impairment on learning and behavior.