4.3 Article

Integrating Gender-Based Violence Screening and Support into the Research Clinic Setting: Experiences from an HIV Prevention Open-Label Extension Trial in Sub-Saharan Africa

期刊

AIDS AND BEHAVIOR
卷 27, 期 4, 页码 1277-1286

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10461-022-03864-6

关键词

HIV prevention; Gender-based violence response; Dapivirine vaginal ring; Referral networks; Vicarious trauma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

HIV and gender-based violence are commonly found together in sub-Saharan Africa. Providing support for individuals who disclose gender-based violence is an important aspect of comprehensive care. By developing and implementing standard operating procedures (SOPs), staff training and confidence can be improved, and prevention of vicarious trauma on site can be enhanced. However, obstacles such as cultural norms, limited referral organizations, and ongoing training needs still exist.
HIV and gender-based violence (GBV) are syndemic in sub-Saharan Africa and provision of support for participants who disclose GBV constitutes part of comprehensive care. Consequently, a process was undertaken to develop, implement, and evaluate standard operating procedures (SOPs) in MTN-025/HOPE, a study of the dapivirine vaginal ring for HIV prevention. The SOP was developed using needs assessment surveys in addition to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines and other literature. Sites tailored and implemented the SOP through HOPE implementation. At study end, staff reported increased training 32/35 (91.43%); improved confidence (18/26; 69.23%); and improved vicarious trauma prevention onsite (17/28; 60.71%). Leadership reported increased staff competence in GBV response. Obstacles included limited referral organizations and time for follow-up, continued training needs, and cultural norms. Development and implementation of an SOP is a feasible strategy to build a GBV response to improve health systems and support sustained effective use of HIV prevention products.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据