Search

This study sought to explore and contextualise the man's role in antenatal services, and the barriers and strategies for engaging men in prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission (PMTCT). We conducted 143 interviews with pregnant and breastfeeding women, male partners, health workers and policy makers in Malawi and Zambia. We employed thematic and critical discourse analysis using the hegemonic masculinity perspective. We found that men's roles in PMTCT reflected hegemonic masculinities. As breadwinners, men supported their partners with material and financial resources. As decision makers, men were involved in decision making on the health of their partners. As social protectors, men supported their partners in accessing and adhering to antenatal care, HIV treatment and care. Barriers and challenges to male involvement in antenatal care were often the result of conflict between the clinic operating hours and men's working hours, the perception of antenatal care services as female spaces, and men's fear of HIV testing. Proposed strategies to increase male engagement in PMTCT included sensitising men about HIV and pregnancy; engaging leaders and employers, providing services outside working hours, and providing incentives. We conclude that men's role and participation in PMTCT services are an extension and adaptation of hegemonic masculinities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High HIV incidence rates have been observed among pregnant and breastfeeding women in sub-Saharan Africa. Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can effectively reduce HIV acquisition in women during these periods; however, understanding of its acceptability and feasibility in antenatal and postpartum populations remains limited. To address this gap, we conducted in-depth interviews with 90 study participants in Malawi and Zambia: 39 HIV-negative pregnant/breastfeeding women, 14 male partners, 19 healthcare workers, and 18 policymakers. Inductive and deductive approaches were used to identify themes related to PrEP. As a public health intervention, PrEP was not well-known among patients and healthcare workers; however, when it was described to participants, most expressed positive views. Concerns about safety and adherence were raised, highlighting two critical areas for community outreach. The feasibility of introducing PrEP into antenatal services was also a concern, especially if introduced within already strained health systems. Support for PrEP varied among policymakers in Malawi and Zambia, reflecting the ongoing policy discussions in their respective countries. Implementing PrEP during the pregnancy and breastfeeding periods will require addressing barriers at the individual, facility, and policy levels. Multi- level approaches should be considered in the design of new PrEP programs for antenatal and postpartum populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: HIV testing male partners of pregnant and postpartum women can lead to improved health outcomes for women, partners and infants. However, in sub‐Saharan Africa, few male partners get HIV tested during their partner's pregnancy in spite of several promising approaches to increase partner testing uptake. We assessed stakeholders' views and preferences of partner notification, home‐based testing and secondary distribution of self‐test kits to understand whether offering choices for partner HIV testing may increase acceptability. Methods: Interviewers conducted semi‐structured interviews with HIV‐negative (N = 39) and HIV‐positive (N = 41) pregnant/postpartum women, male partners of HIV‐negative (N = 14) and HIV‐positive (N = 14) pregnant/postpartum women, healthcare workers (N = 19) and policymakers (N = 16) in Malawi and Zambia. Interviews covered views of each partner testing approach and preferred approaches; healthcare workers were also asked about perceptions of a choice‐based approach. Interviews were transcribed, translated and analysed to compare perspectives across country and participant types. Results: Most participants within each stakeholder group considered all three partner testing strategies acceptable. Relationship conflict was discussed as a potential adverse consequence for each approach. For partner notification, additional barriers included women losing letters, being fearful to give partners letters, being unable to read and men refusing to come to the clinic. For home‐based testing, additional barriers included lack of privacy or confidentiality and fear of experiencing community‐level HIV stigma. For HIV self‐test kits, additional barriers included lack of counselling, false results and poor linkage to care. Preferred male partner testing options varied. Participants preferred partner notification due to their respect for clinical authority, home‐based testing due to their desire to prioritize convenience and clinical authority, and self‐test kits due to their desire to prioritize confidentiality. Less than half of couples interviewed selected the same preferred male partner testing option as their partner. Most healthcare workers felt the choice‐based approach would be acceptable and feasible, but noted implementation challenges in personnel, resources or space. Conclusions: Most stakeholders considered different approaches to partner HIV testing to be acceptable, but concerns were raised about each. A choice‐based approach may allow women to select their preferred method of partner testing; however, implementation challenges need to be addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]