RESEARCH PAPER
Advocacy for HIV/TB co-infection collaborative policy and service delivery in India: a civil society perspective
More details
Hide details
Submission date: 2017-06-08
Final revision date: 2018-02-12
Acceptance date: 2018-03-16
Publication date: 2018-08-15
HIV & AIDS Review 2018;17(4):259-266
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
In the context of evolving policy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/tuberculosis (TB) co-infection in India, the study was conducted to explore civil society perspectives for HIV/TB co-infection collaborative policy and service delivery in the country.
Material and methods:
Twenty-six in-depth interviews were conducted with purposively selected representatives of advocacy organizations, health activist, positive networks of people living with HIV (PLWHA), and general community. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded using QSR NUD*IST software version 6.0, and thematically analyzed. The study was approved by the ethics committee.
Results:
The civil society prioritized HIV/TB co-infection as an important public health issue and advocated identifying common indicators for co-infection for better program management. ‘Team training concept’ for increasing ‘antiretroviral therapy coverage’ and ‘intensified tuberculosis case finding’ were reported successfully in Karnataka, and replication of such models of service delivery in other parts of the country was the expectation. Referring to the disparities observed in the national HIV/TB program, the collaborative policy must be inclusive to address co-infection in all high-risk population including intravenous drug users. Principles of ‘greater involvement of people with HIV/ acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)’ was advocated for district coordination committees and service delivery, suggesting the possible role of PLWHA as a ‘directly observed treatment short course’ provider. Advocacy has a significant role in policy decisions if provided with strong evidence base, but communication between research, advocacy, and policy makers remains a challenge.
Conclusions:
Advocacy made valuable contributions to national AIDS control program in India. However, advocacy for HIV/TB co-infection policy is still in a nascent stage requiring consultative and inclusive approaches.
REFERENCES (26)
1.
Project P. Networking for Policy Change. An Advocacy Training Manual. Washington: POLICY Project, 1999.
2.
WHO. Advocacy guide: HIV/AIDS prevention among injecting users: workshop manual. World Health Organization, UNAIDS, 2004.
3.
Christoffel KK. Public health advocacy: process and product. Am J Public Health 2000; 90: 722-726.
4.
Scholte JA. Civil society and democracy in global governance. Global Governance 2002; 8: 281-304.
5.
Lawn SD, Churchyard G. Epidemiology of HIV-associated tuberculosis Running Head: Epidemiology of TB/HIV. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2009; 4: 325-333.
6.
WHO. Scaling up of collaborative TB/HIV activities in concentrated HIV epidemic settings: a case study from India. WHO, Geneva 2015.
7.
WHO. Interim policy on collaborative TB/HIV activities. WHO, Geneva 2004.
8.
Seth P. The situation of HIV/M. tuberculosis co-infection in India. Open Infect Dis J 2011; 5: 51-59.
9.
Uhler LM, Kumarasamy N, Mayer KH, et al. Cost-effectiveness of HIV testing referral strategies among tuberculosis patients in India. PLoS One 2010; 5: e12747.
10.
NACO. National Framework for Joint HIV/TB Collaborative Activities. NACO, New Delhi 2013.
11.
Raizada N, Chauhan LS, Khera A, et al. HIV seroprevalence among tuberculosis patients in India, 2006-2007. PLoS One 2008; 3: e2970.
12.
CTD. TB India 2010: RNTCP Status Report. CTD, New Delhi 2010.
13.
Reddy KS, Sahay, S. Voices of decision makers on evidence-based policy: A case of evolving TB/HIV co-infection policy in India. AIDS Care 2016; 28: 397-400.
14.
Kamba GD. Factors contributing to under utilisation of HIV testing services among TB patients in Malawi, 2013.
15.
Hanney SR, Gonzalez-Block MA, Buxton MJ, Kogan M. The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst 2003; 1: 2.
16.
Richards L. Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. Sage, 2014.
17.
Grbich C. Qualitative research in health: an introduction. Sage, 1998.
18.
Gomm M, Lincoln P, Pikora T, Giles-Corti B. Planning and implementing a community-based public health advocacy campaign: a transport case study from Australia. Health Promotion International 2006; 21: 284-292.
19.
Johnson S. Public health advocacy. Edmonton, Alberta. Healthy Public Policy-Alberta Health Services, 2009.
20.
Agarwal R, Shastri S, Nagaraja SB, et al. TB-HIV: Challenges for Newer Initiatives in India. ARC Journal of AIDS 2016; 1: 1-2.
21.
Institute OS. Involving the Community in Responding to TB/HIV. Outcomes of Community-Led Monitoring and Advocacy. Baltimore, 2008.
22.
UNAIDS. The Greater Involvement of People Living with HIV (GIPA). UNAIDS, Geneva 2007.
23.
Raghavan CP. Advocacy and Communication in Gender and Development: Implications for working with Ethnolinguistic minority Communities. Bangkok, 2010.
24.
Tweya H, Ben-Smith A, Kalulu M, et al. Timing of antiretroviral therapy and regimen for HIV-infected patients with tuberculosis: the effect of revised HIV guidelines in Malawi. BMC Public Health 2014; 14: 183.
25.
Dharmadhikari AS, Gupta J, Decker MR, et al. Tuberculosis and HIV: a global menace exacerbated via sex trafficking. Int J Infect Dis 2009; 13: 543-546.
26.
Evans CA. GeneXpert – a game-changer for tuberculosis control? PLoS Med 2011; 8: e1001064.