4.1 Article

Access to HIV treatment and care for people who inject drugs in Kenya: a short report

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09540121.2016.1191606

关键词

People who inject drugs; HIV; ART; Kenya; community

资金

  1. International HIV/AIDS Alliance in Ukraine through the Community Action on Harm Reduction Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

People who inject drugs (PWID) experience a range of barriers to HIV treatment and care access. The Kenyan government and community-based organisations have sought to develop HIV care for PWID. A principal approach to delivery in Kenya is to provide care from clinics serving the general population and for this to be linked to support from community-based organisations providing harm reduction outreach. This study explores accounts of PWID accessing care in Kenya to identify care barriers and facilitators. PWID accounts were collected within a qualitative longitudinal study. In-depth interviews with PWID living with HIV (n=44) are combined with interviews with other PWID, care providers and community observation. Results show that some PWID are able to access care successfully, whilst other PWID report challenges. The results focus on three principal themes to give insights into these experiences: the hardship of addiction and the costs of care, the silencing of HIV in the community and then discrimination and support in the clinic. Some PWID are able to overcome, often with social and outreach support, barriers to clinic access; for others, the challenges of addiction, hardship, stigma and discrimination are too constraining. We discuss how clinics serving the general population could be further adapted to increase access. Clinic-based care, even with community links, may, however, be fundamentally challenging for some PWID to access. Additional strategies to develop stand-alone care for PWID and also decentralise HIV treatment and care to community settings and involve peers in delivery should be considered.

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

4.1
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