Using a Multi-level Framework to Test Empirical Relationships Among HIV/AIDS-Related Stigma, Health Service Barriers, and HIV Outcomes in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

8Citations
Citations of this article
75Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

HIV/AIDS-related (HAR) stigma is an ongoing problem in Sub-Saharan Africa that is thought to impede HIV preventive and treatment interventions. This paper uses a systematic sample of households (Level 1) nested within near-neighbor clusters (Level 2) and communities (Level 3) to examine multilevel relationships of HAR stigma to health service barriers (HSBs) and HIV outcomes in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, thereby addressing methodological and conceptual gaps in the literature from this context. Findings suggest differential patterns of prediction at Level 1 when examining two different dimensions of stigma: more highly stigmatizing attitudes predicted more household health service barriers; and perceptions of greater levels of community normative HAR stigma predicted higher household HIV ratios. Level 2 findings were similarly dimension-differentiated. Cross-level analyses found that near-neighbor cluster-level (setting level) consensus about (standard deviation) and level of (mean) community normative HAR stigma significantly predicted household-level HSBs and HIV ratio, controlling for household-level community normative HAR stigma. These differential patterns of prediction suggest that HAR stigma is a multi-level construct with multiple dimensions that relate to important outcomes differently within and across multiple ecological levels. This has important implications for future research, and for developing interventions that address setting-level variation in stigma.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Williams, L. D., & Aber, J. L. (2020). Using a Multi-level Framework to Test Empirical Relationships Among HIV/AIDS-Related Stigma, Health Service Barriers, and HIV Outcomes in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. AIDS and Behavior, 24(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-019-02439-2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free