Search

IntroductionKey populations at elevated risk to contract or transmit HIV may also be at higher risk of COVID-19 complications and adverse outcomes associated with public health prevention measures. However, the conditions faced by specific populations vary according to social, structural and environmental factors, including stigma and discrimination, criminalization, social and economic safety nets and the local epidemiology of HIV and COVID-19, which determine risk of exposure and vulnerability to adverse health outcomes, as well as the ability to comply with measures such as physical distancing. This commentary identifies common vulnerabilities and cross-cutting themes in terms of the impacts of COVID-19 on key populations before addressing issues and concerns specific to particular populations.DiscussionCross-cutting themes include direct impacts such as disrupted access to essential medicines, commodities and services such as anti-retroviral treatment, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, opioid agonist treatment, viral load monitoring, HIV and sexually transmitted infections testing, condoms and syringes. Indirect impacts include significant collateral damage arising from prevention measures which restrict human rights, increase or impose criminal penalties, and expand police powers to target vulnerable and criminalized populations. Significant heterogeneity in the COVID-19 pandemic, the underlying HIV epidemic and the ability of key populations to protect themselves means that people who inject drugs and sex workers face particular challenges, including indirect impacts as a result of police targeting, loss of income and sometimes both. Geographical variations mean that transgender people and men who have sex with men in regions like Africa and the middle east remain criminalized, as well as stigmatized and discriminated against, increasing their vulnerability to adverse outcomes in relation to COVID-19.ConclusionsDisruptions to both licit and illicit supply chains, loss of income and livelihoods and changes in behaviour as a result of lockdowns and physical distancing have the potential to exacerbate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on key populations. While these impacts will vary significantly, human-rights approaches to COVID-19 emergency laws and public health prevention measures that are population-specific and sensitive, will be key to reducing adverse health outcomes and ensuring that no one is left behind.

Introduction: A Programme Science approach that prioritizes populations who will benefit most and ensuring resources are allocated to programmes that meet the needs of those populations will bring an equity focus to research. Gay men and other men who have sex with men, people who use drugs, sex workers of all genders, and trans and gender‐diverse people, defined by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) as key populations, have been disproportionately impacted since the start of the HIV pandemic. Through documenting community experiences from global key population‐led networks, the authors explore the potential value and impact of community‐led organizations and service delivery as critical components in effective HIV and Sexually Transmitted infections (STI) programmes. Discussion: Through advocacy and research interventions, global key population networks have identified barriers against scaling up interventions for criminalized and marginalized communities, as well as highlighted solutions. The authors examine some of the current barriers to meaningful involvement of communities and the scaling up of community‐led programmes that need to be addressed if Programme Science is to maintain an equity lens and the needs of key populations are to be met and highlight the need to make visible community engagement and participation in embedded research and Programme Science. Conclusions: The Programme Science approach provides an important opportunity to understand practical issues that will increase effective coverage in the implementation of public health and other interventions, which will require the prioritizing of key populations and their priorities in HIV and STI programmes. It will require extensive time and work to build relationships, increase capacity and share power. Where this has already happened, it has resulted in positive outcomes, including better health outcomes, reduced stigma, increased agency for key populations, and built community‐led organizations and responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]