Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28768541›Full record

ArticleBMC international health and human rights2017

Key populations and human rights in the context of HIV services rendition in Ghana.

Amos Laar, Debra DeBruin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC international health and human rights, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Global Legal Environment for LGBTQ+ Sexuality and Public Health.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Perceptions of Sexual Healthcare Provision in Tanzania: a Key Informant Qualitative Study.Sexuality research & social policy : journal of NSRC : SR & SP · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Thirty Years of Human Rights Study in the Web of Science Database (1990-2020).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Amos LaarDepartment of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, University of Ghana, Box LG 13, Legon, Accra, Ghana. alaar@ug.edu.gh.
Debra DeBruinCenter for Bioethics, University of Minnesota, 410 Church Street S.E MN, Minneapolis, 55455-0346, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn line with its half century old penal code, Ghana currently criminalizes and penalizes behaviors of some key populations - populations deemed to be at higher risk of acquiring or transmitting Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Men who have sex with men (MSM), and sex workers (SWs) fit into this categorization. This paper provides an analysis of how enactment and implementation of rights-limiting laws not only limit rights, but also amplify risk and vulnerability to HIV in key and general populations. The paper derives from a project that assessed the ethics sensitivity of key documents guiding Ghana's response to its HIV epidemic. Assessment was guided by leading frameworks from public health ethics, and relevant articles from the international bill of rights. DISCUSSION: Ghana's response to her HIV epidemic does not adequately address the rights and needs of key populations. Even though the national response has achieved some public health successes, palpable efforts to address rights issues remain nascent. Ghana's guiding documents for HIV response include no advocacy for decriminalization, depenalization or harm reduction approaches for these key populations. The impact of rights-restricting codes on the nation's HIV epidemic is real: criminalization impedes key populations' access to HIV prevention and treatment services. Given that they are bridging populations, whatever affects the Ghanaian key populations directly, affects the general population indirectly. The right to the highest attainable standard of health, without qualification, is generally acknowledged as a fundamental human right. Unfortunately, this right currently eludes the Ghanaian SW and MSM. The paper endorses decriminalization as a means of promoting this right. In the face of opposition to decriminalization, the paper proposes specific harm reduction strategies as approaches to promote health and uplift the diminished rights of key populations. Thus the authors call on Ghana to remove impediments to public health services provision to these populations. Doing so will require political will and sufficient planning toward prioritizing HIV prevention, care and treatment programming for key populations.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityFemaleGhanaHealth PolicyHIV InfectionsHomosexuality, MaleHuman RightsHumansMalePublic HealthSex WorkersGhanaHealth rightsHIVKey populationsNegative rightsPositive rights

Identifiers

PMID28768541
PMCPMC5541754

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.