A socio-ecological perspective of access to and acceptability of HIV/AIDS treatment and care services: a qualitative case study research

Abstract

BackgroundAccess to healthcare is an essential element of health development and a fundamental human right. While access to and acceptability of healthcare are complex concepts that interact with different socio-ecological factors (individual, community, institutional and policy), it is not known how these factors affect HIV care. This study investigated the impact of socio-ecological factors on access to and acceptability of HIV/AIDS treatment and care services (HATCS) in Wolaita Zone of Ethiopia.MethodQualitative case study research was conducted in six woredas (districts). Focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with 68 participants in 11 groups (six with people using antiretroviral therapy (ART) and five with general community members). Key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted with 28 people involved in HIV care, support services and health administration at different levels. Individual in-depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted with eight traditional healers and seven defaulters from (ART). NVIVO 10 was used to assist qualitative content data analysis.ResultsA total of 111 people participated in the study, of which 51 (45.9 %) were male and 60 (54.1 %) were female, while 58 (53.3 %) and 53 (47.7 %) were urban and rural residents, respectively. The factors that affect access to and acceptability of HATCS were categorized in four socio-ecological units of analysis: client-based factors (awareness, experiences, expectations, income, employment, family, HIV disclosure and food availability); community-based factors (care and support, stigma and discrimination and traditional healing); health facility-based factors (interactions with care providers, availability of care, quality of care, distance, affordability, logistics availability, follow up and service administration); and policy and standards (healthcare financing, service standards, implementation manuals and policy documents).ConclusionsA socio-ecological perspective provides a useful framework to investigate the interplay among multilevel and interactive factors that impact on access to and acceptability of HATCS such as clients, community, institution and policy. Planners, resource allocators and implementers could consider these factors during planning, implementation and evaluation of HATCS. Further study is required to confirm the findings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-016-2830-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Measuring health system responsiveness at facility level in Ethiopia: performance, correlates and implications

“…A qualitative study conducted in the study area showed that the ways clients treated in the health facilities varied across health facilities and care providers and impacted the perceptions of clients towards responsiveness [60]. However, the findings also showed that all of the responsiveness domains had substantial proportions of their performance falling in the ‘good’ category, which meant that some expectations regarding the responsiveness domains were met.…”

Traditional health practitioners’ management of HIV/AIDS in rural South Africa in the era of widespread antiretroviral therapy

“…The current literature suggests a mixed account of THPs’ knowledge and understanding of HIV/AIDS. Some studies have found that THPs consider HIV to be caused by a combination of physical, environmental and spiritual impurity [72,73]. THPs who held this perspective also said that they could treat HIV-related symptoms such as swollen lymph nodes, mouth and genital ulcers, weight loss and diarrhoea [72].…”

Affordability in individuals' healthcare decision making: A concept analysis

“…Levesque et al 12 mention that geographic availability impacts the affordability of health services. The impact of transportation cost on affordability is highlighted in studies from rural health, nutrition, maternal health, and public health disciplines 18–21 . Other indirect costs mentioned in the literature which relate to affordability include costs of insurance, time, taxes, and societal 19,22,23 .…”

“…Other indirect costs mentioned in the literature which relate to affordability include costs of insurance, time, taxes, and societal 19,22,23 . Additional studies describe the nonmonetary cost of stress that a financial transaction may incur 21,24–26 . Finally, Kurpas et al 27 describe a unique situation where one must essentially pay a price to make health care available.…”