Search

Objectives: In the context of HIV clinical care, open discussion regarding sexual health and reproductive plans has become increasingly relevant. The aim of this paper is to explore barriers to communication between providers and women living with HIV regarding childbearing.Methods: In-depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted with 48 HIV infected women receiving ART at 7 different HIV clinics providing comprehensive HIV care services in four districts in Uganda, between July and August 2012. All women were aware of their HIV diagnosis prior to pregnancy or had given birth while living with HIV.Results: Four themes emerged describing barriers to communication, from the HIV-positive women's point of view: (i) provider indifference or opposition to childbearing post HIV diagnosis, (ii) anticipation of negative response from provider, (iii) provider's emphasis on 'scientific' facts, (iv) 'accidental pregnancy'.Conclusion: Existing evidence regarding effective provider-patient communication should be considered for its application for reproductive counseling among HIV infected women.Practice Implications: These data demonstrate the need for current counseling guidelines to explore approaches that encourage open, non-judgmental, non-directive discussions with HIV positive individuals around their reproductive desires and intentions in a health care setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efforts to prevent intimate partner violence (IPV) have been informed by emerging research on common triggers of IPV and the importance of engaging with couple dynamics. This paper reports on secondary data analysis from the qualitative evaluations of the SASA! intervention in Uganda, (conducted in 2012 involving 40 community members) and the Indashyikirwa intervention in Rwanda, (conducted between 2014 and 2018 involving 14 couples and 36 other stakeholders). It explores the under-researched linkages between romantic jealousy and IPV, and describes how these interventions mitigated it. A qualitative approach using interviews and focus groups with women and men was used. Overall, jealousy was common in both settings, and led to relationship challenges including breakdown of trust; quarrels about resources; conflict, controlling behaviours, and ultimately, physical and emotional IPV. Jealousy was seen to operate through different gendered pathways. Participants described women to question men about their whereabouts and intentions because of jealousy or the suspicion of infidelity, whereas participants described men to be jealous or suspicious of women socialising with, or attracting the attention of, other men and using violence in response. Through gender transformative strategies, SASA! and Indashyikirwa were described by participants to reduce the contribution of romantic jealousy to conflict and violence by encouraging improved relationship faithfulness and honesty; supporting reduced suspicion through improved relationship trust and communication; and identifying jealousy and suspicion of, or real infidelity, as direct triggers of IPV. While these programmes show promising results, gaps remain including a lack of standardised measures of the multidimensional concept of romantic jealousy. Recognition that programmes should be evaluated for their ability to reduce romantic jealousy when identified as a trigger for IPV in a specific context should also be emphasised. More research is also needed on the forms, gendered pathways, and consequences of romantic jealousy to inform context-specific programming. • Linkages between romantic jealousy and intimate partner violence poorly understood. • Jealousy can lead to relationship conflict and intimate partner violence. • Negative impacts of jealousy operate through different gendered pathways. • Contribution of jealousy to conflict and intimate partner violence can be reduced. • Standardised measures of the multidimensional concept of romantic jealousy required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]