Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28284184›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2017

Building the evidence base for stigma and discrimination-reduction programming in Thailand: development of tools to measure healthcare stigma and discrimination.

Kriengkrai Srithanaviboonchai, Melissa Stockton, Nareerut Pudpong, Suwat Chariyalertsak, Phusit Prakongsai, Chonlisa Chariyalertsak, Piyathida Smutraprapoot, Laura Nyblade

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Kriengkrai SrithanaviboonchaiResearch Institute of Health Sciences, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intavaroros Road, Sriphum, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand. ksrithanaviboonchai@gmail.com.
Melissa StocktonResearch Triangle Institute, International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Nareerut PudpongHealthcare Accreditation Institute (Public Organization), Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Suwat ChariyalertsakResearch Institute of Health Sciences, Chiang Mai University, 110 Intavaroros Road, Sriphum, Muang, Chiang Mai, 50200, Thailand.
Phusit PrakongsaiInternational Health Policy Program, Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Chonlisa ChariyalertsakChiang Mai Provincial Health Office, Ministry of Public Health, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Piyathida SmutraprapootBureau of AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Sexually Transmitted Infections, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Bangkok, Thailand.
Laura NybladeResearch Triangle Institute, International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

PEPFAR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHIV-related stigma and discrimination (S&D) are recognized as key impediments to controlling the HIV epidemic. S&D are particularly detrimental within health care settings because people who are at risk of HIV and people living with HIV (PLHIV) must seek services from health care facilities. Standardized tools and monitoring systems are needed to inform S&D reduction efforts, measure progress, and monitor trends. This article describes the processes followed to adapt and refine a standardized global health facility staff S&D questionnaire for the context of Thailand and develop a similar questionnaire measuring health facility stigma experienced by PLHIV. Both questionnaires are currently being used for the routine monitoring of HIV-related S&D in the Thai healthcare system.

methodsThe questionnaires were adapted through a series of consultative meetings, pre-testing, and revision. The revised questionnaires then underwent field testing, and the data and field experiences were analyzed.

resultsTwo brief questionnaires were finalized and are now being used by the Department of Disease Control to collect national routine data for monitoring health facility S&D: 1) a health facility staff questionnaire that collects data on key drivers of S&D in health facilities (i.e., fear of HIV infection, attitudes toward PLHIV and key populations, and health facility policy and environment) and observed enacted stigma and 2) a brief PLHIV questionnaire that captures data on experienced discriminatory practices at health care facilities.

conclusionsThis effort provides an example of how a country can adapt global S&D measurement tools to a local context for use in national routine monitoring. Such data helps to strengthen the national response to HIV through the provision of evidence to shape S&D-reduction programming.

Indexed as

Health FacilitiesSocial StigmaAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelAttitude to HealthFearFemaleHealth PersonnelHIV InfectionsHumansMaleSocial DiscriminationSurveys and QuestionnairesThailand

Identifiers

PMID28284184
PMCPMC5346237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.