Geographies in Depth

How stigma is hampering access to HIV treatment in Nigeria

Nine-year-old Tumelo shows off antiretroviral (ARV) pills before taking his medication at Nkosi's Haven, south of Johannesburg November 28, 2014. Nkosi's Haven provides residential care for destitute HIV-positive mothers and their children, whether HIV-positive or not. Nkosi's Haven is named after Nkosi Johnson, the young AIDS activist who passed away on International Children's Day on June 1, 2001. December 1 is World AIDS Day. Picture taken November 28.

In order to make a shift to localized programmes work, the Nigerian government will need to destigmatize the disease. Image: REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko

Obinna Onwujekwe
Professor of Health Economics and Policy, University of Nigeria
Share:
Our Impact
What's the World Economic Forum doing to accelerate action on Geographies in Depth?
The Big Picture
Explore and monitor how Africa is affecting economies, industries and global issues
A hand holding a looking glass by a lake
Crowdsource Innovation
Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale
Stay up to date:

Future of Global Health and Healthcare

More HIV-positive Nigerians could take up antiretroviral treatment if services were provided at government-owned primary health-care centres in the country’s rural areas rather than in urban hospitals.

But for a shift to localised programmes to work, the government will need to destigmatise HIV in rural areas. If this doesn’t happen, patients will stay away because they fear that their HIV status will be disclosed and they’ll be ostracised in their communities.

This is the finding of our study, which tried to understand how patients perceived the treatment they received at primary health-care facilities that are close to where they live and work.

With more than 3 million people living with HIV, Nigeria has the third-highest burden in the world.

In the country antiretroviral treatment services are administered at treatment centres in secondary and tertiary hospitals. These are mostly located in urban settings as part of the country’s national HIV control programme.

But this strategy has not reduced the rate of new infections among children and young adults. In 2010, Nigeria had a national HIV prevalence of 4.1%. This only marginally decreased to 3.6% in 2013. There is also a slightly higher HIV prevalence in rural areas than in urban areas.

Decentralising antiretroviral treatment services is one of the most effective ways to solve this. It would result in:

-antiretroviral services being better matched with local preferences;

-better access in hard-to-reach rural areas and for vulnerable groups; and

-the use of cost-effective approaches.

What the patients think

Studies have shown that poor rural people have higher and more exorbitant health costs when they try to access antiretroviral treatment – and, as a result, they are unable to maintain treatment. Food and transport costs, as well as the costs of other illnesses linked to HIV, hinder them from accessing treatment services.

To understand why centralised service centres were ineffective, our study looked at patients’ perceptions and attitudes towards decentralising antiretroviral treatment services from central hospitals to primary health-care centres.

Primary health-care centres are localised clinics in Nigeria.

We did a cross-sectional survey in health facilities in three Nigerian states: Abia, Adamawa and Cross River states. At the time of the study, decentralisation was to start in Abia state, had not yet started in Adamawa state and was under way in Cross River state.

The vast majority of those surveyed were happy that they were on treatment. Their health had improved and they were happy to continue treatment.

They felt decentralising antiretroviral treatment services would help control HIV and AIDS in the country. But they were not comfortable with receiving antiretroviral treatment services in a primary health-care facility close to where they live. More than 80% of the respondents feared that their status would be disclosed and more than 70% feared that they would be discriminated against.

Most were satisfied with the service delivery mechanism that they were currently receiving, and were willing to continue in this way. Of those who were not satisfied, long waiting times appeared to be the most common reason for dissatisfaction.

Decentralisation has worked before

There are clear benefits to decentralising treatment.

Before the study, a pilot was launched in two Nigerian states to understand the effects of decentralisation. The pilot effectively moved HIV testing and counselling, and prevention of mother-to-child transmission services from centrally located specialist hospitals to peripheral health centres.

At those centres the community as a whole and people individually were more accepting of the services. Being closer to the treatment centres meant patients were enrolled faster and stuck to their treatment regimes better.

The nurses and counsellors had a reduced workload, which led to improved patient care. And both the waiting time and the financial costs were reduced. This increased access to care for the most affected and those in hard-to-reach areas and improved community participation and ownership.

Stigma is the final step

But to achieve universal access to antiretroviral services, more work needs to be done to address stigma.

Efforts at reducing stigma and discrimination around HIV and AIDS have been successful even in Nigeria, which has a culturally driven society. Some of these interventions have taken the form of campaign days, marches or concerts to create awareness around HIV, and have included international nongovernmental organisations.

But these HIV demystifying interventions have concentrated on urban areas, leaving out the rural majority. This could explain why people residing in rural areas prefer to receive care far from home.

This is particularly important as antiretoviral treatment services may be a challenge in developing countries like Nigeria, which are resource poor. In these countries there is often a struggle to determine how limited resources should be used to provide high quality patient care services in a sustainable way.

The answer lies in considering both the effectiveness of doing things differently as well as the social impediments that stand in the way.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

Sign up for free

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:
Geographies in DepthEmerging Technologies
Share:
World Economic Forum logo
Global Agenda

The Agenda Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

Subscribe today

You can unsubscribe at any time using the link in our emails. For more details, review our privacy policy.

What is desertification and why is it important to understand?

Andrea Willige

April 23, 2024

About Us

Events

Media

Partners & Members

  • Join Us

Language Editions

Privacy Policy & Terms of Service

© 2024 World Economic Forum