AIDS: Revised version, June 14th
Hope: a new way to look at the HIV epidemic
Sarah Bernays1, Tim Rhodes1, Tony Barnett2
1. Centre for Research on Drugs and Health Behaviour, London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
2. LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
Running head:
Hope and the HIV epidemic
Correspondence:
Sarah Bernays, sarah.bernays@lshtm.ac.uk
Conflicts of interest:
None declared
1
AIDS: Revised version, June 14th 2007
Hope: a new way to look at the HIV epidemic
Sarah Bernays, Tim Rhodes, Tony Barnett
Abstract
There is currently a shift towards embracing ‘structural intervention’ approaches in HIV
prevention and HIV treatment. We offer the concept of hope as an important new
framework for researching HIV prevention and HIV treatment. We argue first, that hope is
linked to capacity for behaviour change and helps us understand how social environments
enable as well as constrain risk reduction. Second, we argue that hope helps us
understand HIV treatment engagement and impact, especially uneasy relations between
treatment access expectation and the lived experience of treatment delivery in
environments characterised by fragile treatment systems. We conclude that HIV prevention
should seek to create the structural conditions conducive to sustaining hope in the future,
while drawing attention to the often unforeseen local effects of global discourses of HIV
treatment promise which may offer an illusion of hope in certain contexts. We draw specific
attention to the urgent need for interventions to tackle the adverse psychological and social
consequences of fragile treatment delivery. Hope is an under researched concept in the
social science of HIV prevention and HIV treatment. It offers unrealised potential,
particularly for thinking about structural interventions in relation to managing HIV as a
chronic illness and for maximising HIV risk reduction in resource-poor settings.
Keywords: Hope; Uncertainty; Risk environment; HIV prevention; HIV treatment; ARV
2
Hope: a new way to look at the HIV epidemic
Sarah Bernays, Tim Rhodes, Tony Barnett
HIV, like any epidemic, is above all a social event. Social sciences have been hampered in
their contribution to understanding the epidemic by limited conceptualisation linked to an
overriding concern with individual risk behaviours and cognitive-based approaches to risk
reduction and treatment adherence. Some research on HIV prevention, treatment and
impact mitigation has begun to grapple with concepts of risk environment [1, 2] and
structural intervention [3], but these approaches are still not fully integrated.
Hope has for some time been recognised as an important factor in disease progression. [4,
5] We propose two ways in which the concept of hope can contribute to improving HIV
prevention and HIV treatment. First, we offer hope as a framework for understanding the
relation between risk, behaviour and the wider social and economic environment. Hope can
be seen as a pivotal concept linking individual behaviours to social and economic contexts;
a measurable manifestation of the ways that social and economic structures function as
risk regulators for the individual. [6] We suggest that hope – a positive expectation of the
future – is linked to capacity for behaviour change and is in part a product of the quality and
characteristics of the wider risk environment. This conceptualisation clarifies some of the
uses of the terms vulnerability and susceptibility which have been used to describe the link
between socio-economic environments, individual risk propensities and HIV infection [2, 7,
8]. Appadurai has explored similar ideas through the concept of aspiration.[9] Looked at
from this perspective, we may see the implications for how HIV prevention interventions
may seek to create environmental conditions conducive to securing and sustaining hope as
part of wider efforts enabling risk reduction.
Second, we offer hope as a useful framework for understanding the social environment of
anti-retroviral HIV treatment (ART), and in particular the relation between treatment access,
delivery and security. Here hope provides a heuristic device for investigating the uneasy
balance between overarching narratives of hope and promise generated by global
discourses of ART scale-up, and local lived experiences of ART uncertainty in the context
of fragile treatment delivery systems. Taken together, individual and group hope levels can
be seen as a critical variable in securing capacity for HIV prevention and HIV treatment. We
note that certain environmental conditions may puncture or limit hope, leading to a lack of
investment in the future as realised through engagement in HIV prevention and HIV
treatment. It is therefore at once necessary for HIV prevention interventions to create the
structural conditions conducive to securing hope and important that global discourses of
3
HIV treatment promise do not offer merely an illusion of hope to people living and working
with HIV/AIDS.
Hope, risk and HIV prevention
It is no longer realistic to consider the problem of “risk” merely in relation to individual
behaviours. Thus:
“Continuing misunderstanding of the nature of the problem, based on wrong
assumptions about the drivers of other people’s sex lives, will result in waste
of resource on inappropriate policy recommendations and interventions. If
this realisation continues to elude politicians who ultimately determine the
direction of much “prevention” policy, the resulting morbidity, mortality and
consequent long term social and economic – and even political – costs will
continue to accrue.”[10]
While it is established that health outcomes and health risk behaviours are unequally
distributed in all societies,[11, 12] the relation between health and poverty is not direct,
being mediated through poorly understood pathways from social structure to individual
health outcomes.[13] The theoretical and political challenge is to deploy insights about the
ecology of risk pragmatically. This involves developing social and structural interventions
for HIV prevention that are evaluated by the common criteria of impact, effectiveness and
cost.[14] The building blocks for such a pragmatic engagement rest on two foundations:
first, recognition of the links between individual risk behaviours and the environments in
which these occur; second, clarity about the ways in which different environments permit
differing degrees of hope for the future and thus longer or shorter decision horizons for
individuals.
Hope is a fundamental and measurable concept for linking individual behaviour to the
characteristics of the surrounding risk environment.[15, 16] The environment is perhaps
best thought of as a risk regulator of individual behavioural decisions, imposing constraints
and opportunities that shape behavioural risk factors.[17] We propose that the concept of
hope is a missing piece of the jigsaw linking the individual to the environment. Whereas
some environments permit hope for a future, thus enabling individuals to take a long term
perspective on their current behaviours, other environments have the opposite effect,
resulting in harmful sequelae for individuals and in the case of an epidemic of
communicable disease, for the wider society. As illustrated by Figure 1, we hypothesise
that high risk environments link with weak hope, and thus also, weak capacity for
4
investment in the future, including through HIV prevention, whereas low risk environments
secure the presence of hope, and thus also, stronger capacity for HIV prevention.
Figure 1
The relation between hope and HIV prevention
Figure 1 The relation between hope and HIV prevention
further increases risk
High risk environment
Low hope
Low risk environment
Secure hope
Weak capacity for investment
HIV prevention
Strong capacity for investment
in HIV prevention
further reduces risk
A growing body of research links aspects of the social environment to risk behaviour and
health inequality.[17, 18] Important here is the embodiment of social conditions; a process
whereby wider social forces shaping health opportunity and inequality are internalised over
time by individuals. Evidence exploring health inequalities show links between the
environments people occupy and perceptions of stress, autonomy and self efficacy, which
in turn shape the self-regulation of risk behaviour.[18, 19] Some characterise this process
as a kind of oppression illness in its effects among the socially excluded, including
populations vulnerable to HIV.[20] In short, environments are regulators of hope and hope
shapes risk decisions.
Two examples show how socio-economic environment regulates risk taking and future
discounting. In the first, excess deaths in the Chicago heat wave of 1995 were associated
with decisions by older, chronically sick and immobile people not to purchase air
conditioning equipment while at the same time fearing opening their windows to gain
adequate ventilation. [21] In the second, the US obesity epidemic is shown to be closely
related to processes of de-urbanisation and de-industrialisation .[22-24] These studies
illustrate the influence of the social environment in mediating health behaviour, privileging
the accommodation of immediate risk over investing in health considerations for the future.
Just as research shows links between social environments conducive to stress or
5
uncertainty and health inequality,[17-19] HIV prevention research needs to investigate links
between environment, hope and capacity for risk reduction.
Hope and HIV treatment
An international HIV treatment revolution, with a goal of near universal access by 2010,
aims to help unlock many low income countries, particularly those in Sub-Saharan Africa,
from a cycle of vulnerability in which HIV epidemics interact with poverty and other forms of
inequality.[25, 26] Consistent access to ART creates an opportunity to curtail morbidity by
reducing HIV to a manageable chronic illness, as well as increasing the capacity of people
living with HIV/AIDS and their carers to maintain their livelihoods and economic
productivity. In low income settings, HIV treatment offers the possibility of reducing short
term survival decisions which jeopardise long term survival, encouraging investment in the
future, with the result of mitigating against household dissolution and intensification of
poverty. The provision of ART may be an important component in HIV prevention through
influencing the degree of hope associated with HIV diagnosis and future.[27]
The relative success of global HIV treatment scale-up has generated a great deal of hope.
[28] The World AIDS Conference of 1996 was themed “One World, One Hope” to signify
the advent of ART. While we are recently reminded that some African delegates displayed
banners reading “One World, No Hope” to signify major inequalities in treatment access in
low income countries,[26] the end of 2006 saw great strides toward global access to free
HIV treatment. More than two million people in low and middle income countries are now
being treated with ART.[29] However, in many parts of the world, access to ART remains
uneven and scarce.[30] Structural constraints on HIV treatment access and delivery
produce fallout from this optimistic discourse of hope, which is absorbed by individuals
delivering, receiving and waiting for treatment. Such fallout is likely to shape individuals’
perceptions of their futures with ART. The importance of mental health care in ART delivery
is recognised,[31] but understanding and responding to the adverse psychological and
social consequences from fragile treatment delivery remains largely unaddressed.
The progress of HIV treatment roll-out in low income and transitional settings is hampered
to varying extent by financial, organisational and physical obstacles.[32] There are reports
of inconsistent treatment delivery from a breadth of regions. [33-36] While unsurprising
given the enormity and contextual realities of the scale-up effort, little rigorous work has
examined how individuals and communities navigate such uncertainty. For instance, the
environmental and bureaucratic constraints leading to the “torpid pace” of the treatment roll
out in South Africa has been said to have “squandered hopes”, resulting in a politics of
6
rationing by treatment providers and dashed treatment expectations for people living with
HIV.[30] Those with established treatment access remain vulnerable to the fragility of donor
dependent treatment delivery.[37] A temporary suspension of Global Fund support to
Uganda in 2005 introduced serious uncertainties about the continuity of HIV treatment. This
was amplified locally through a combination of rumour and anxiety. Concerns about the
sustainability of HIV treatment supplies in Uganda remain, with occasional local press
reports that ARVs have “run out”.[38] Improved understanding of the fallout experienced
from the disjuncture of expectation and promise on the one hand, and experience and
uncertainty on the other, is practically and ethically necessary as an aid to developing
treatment support interventions for individuals as well as cautionary lessons in relation to
raised expectations, hope and disappointment.
Understanding hope in HIV treatment
Much can be gained from researching narratives of hope and uncertainty related to HIV
treatment. Sociological research in rich countries found that ART altered conceptualisations
of HIV as well as of risk, security and future. These shifts have been interpreted as ‘risk
productive’ as well as ‘risk reductive’. For example, the physical renewal associated with
HIV treatments has enabled renegotiation of social identities, roles, relationships and
temporal orientations;[39, 40] while the recession of imminent death may bring new
uncertainties in relation to perceptions of life expectancy, identity as long term survivors,
and treatment side effects, adherence and treatment resistance.[41-43]
The extent to which HIV treatment is experienced by people living with HIV as a solution to
risk, as the promise of hope, or as risk potential varies widely given differences in treatment
context. While hope is defined broadly as a positive expectation of future,[44, 45] the
meanings of time horizons are place specific.[46] Social science research in rich world
settings has examined the role hope plays in patients’ management of chronic illness, as
well as HIV/AIDS,[44, 47-49] yet these studies may be inappropriate to environments in
which acute vulnerability to illness is not experienced as major ‘biographical disruption’,[50,
51] and in which risk and insecurity are dominant characteristics of existence. The
behaviour outcomes informed by HIV diagnosis, the opportunity of treatment access, and
individuals’ perceptions of future may be quite different in settings characterised by intense
poverty, daily struggle, high HIV prevalence and fragile HIV treatment delivery. [26]
Alongside the ‘risk reducing’ promise of HIV treatment related to health improvement and
renewal of productivity, it is important to explore the possibility of ‘risk producing’
consequences of treatment opportunity. For example the fallout from the experience of
7
fragile delivery has implications for patients’ physiological and psychological well being, as
well as for future illness management, adherence and viral resistance. [52] It is unknown,
for example, how the management of HIV as a chronic condition in low income settings will
be balanced alongside ‘new’ risks such as viral resistance and treatment side effects [39,
41, 43] and ‘pre-existing’ risks, for example access to basic life-resources such as nutrition,
finance and relationship security as well as risky behaviour and reproductive life choices
associated with treatment optimism.[53, 54]
We suggest that an environment which fosters hope in access to ART and in the delivery
and outcome of ART is a critical factor mediating risk and life decisions. As illustrated by
Figure 2, we hypothesise that environments characterised by fragile HIV treatment systems
foster the loss of hope, in turn linking with weakened capacity for investing in the future
through HIV treatment engagement. While environments offering stable and secure HIV
treatment are not without risk or uncertainty (as we have noted above), they may serve to
maintain hope, and thus also, a long term perspective realised through HIV treatment
engagement.
Figure 2
Hope and the HIV epidemic
Figure 2 Hope and the HIV epidemic
Secure
delivery
High
hope
High treatment
engagement
Fragile
delivery
Low
hope
Risk of
disengagement
Opportunity to
receive ART
High risk
environmen
t
Low
hope
Weak capacity
for investment
in HIV
prevention
HIV
treatment
need
Weak
opportunity to
receive ART
Low risk
environment
Secure
hope
Low
hope
Disengagement
and failure
Health
vulnerability
Household
vulnerability
(reduced economic
productivity,
orphaning, etc)
Strong capacity
for investment in
HIV prevention
Figure 2 highlights the need for interventions which create environments conducive to
securing hope. We are arguing that long term successful HIV prevention and treatment
requires environments protective of hope, and which promote as well as sustain a positive
expectation of, and investment in, the future. This means it is crucially important to protect
against the creation of an illusion of hope through global promises which can not be met
8
locally. Within these boundaries, it is equally important to invest in social and structural
interventions which are protective of hope, and these include: improved treatment system
delivery; systematic reviews of treatment systems prior to scaling-up; psychosocial support
for staff delivering ART and people receiving or awaiting treatment; increased attention to
treatment literacy and communication of treatment expectations, including in relation to
rationing; contingency plans and emergency treatment funds in situations of treatment
disruption or shortages in supply; enhancement of community advocacy and links to
community support organisations; and linked nutritional and healthcare support. [26, 30, 55,
56]
Importantly, Figure 2 also shows how the relations of hope connect HIV prevention and HIV
treatment in long term perspective. In risk environments where the sustainable efficacy of
HIV treatment roll out and engagement is reduced, there are potential generational effects
in creating environments susceptible to HIV risk as well as to limiting hope in the future. For
example, a child whose parents have died of AIDS due to the ineffective delivery of, and
weakened capacity to adhere to, HIV treatment is situated in a higher risk environment to
contract HIV, than if she or he had been parented into early adulthood. [57] Hope – or more
specifically, environments in which hope is secured and sustained – protects against this
generational cycle of HIV risk production.
The need for an emic perspective
Despite the pertinence of delivery in shaping the social impact of ART, there is a marked
absence of research capturing the lived experience of HIV treatment opportunity in the
context of global treatment scale up. This is especially the case in low income settings,
reflecting a lack of qualitative or ethnographic research capacity and a lack of emphasis on
research which is critically reflexive of internationally endorsed interventions holding so
much promise and any possible fallout from the illusion of hope.
As with HIV prevention, the primary focus of research on target reaching and treatment
adherence places the burden of responsibility on the individual.[58] The capacity of the
treatment system to adhere to its delivery commitments has barely been researched, and
there are few studies exploring the effects of how the treatment promise, and insecurity of
its provision, is experienced. [56, 59] We therefore emphasise the need for studies of the
social impact of ART to capture the perspectives of those delivering, receiving and hoping
to access treatment.
We believe that the complex and pervasive impact of fragile treatment delivery on the
everyday lived experience of people living with HIV/AIDS within this current period of
9
treatment scale-up is best captured by qualitative methods, and ideally through treatment
ethnography. Ethnography is a distinct form of qualitative research, emphasising holism
(understanding the social environment of lived experience), immersion (understanding
social relations through engagement), and triangulation (comparing multiple accounts and
forms of data). Capturing the narratives of hope, risk and treatment experience among
those delivering, receiving and eligible to receive ART is a fundamental step to informing
treatment delivery and generating an empirically informed ethics of treatment provision.[4749]
Understanding emic perspectives of hope related to HIV treatment through ethnography
leads to better grounded survey and evaluation studies of treatment outcome and
adherence, as well as to hypotheses linking hope and risk environment which are
potentially testable through quantitative designs. Taken together, there is a need for multimethods research capable of understanding how treatment experience, expectation and
outcome is linked to environment.
A case example in HIV treatment uncertainty
Drawing on depth qualitative interviews with people living with HIV/AIDS (n=42) and
delivering (n=18) HIV treatment, we undertook social science research documenting the
lived experience of HIV treatment in Serbia and in Montenegro, an environment in which
treatment delivery is experienced as inconsistent.[33] Findings highlight how people living
with HIV/AIDS navigate their treatment and life decisions in a climate of pervasive
uncertainty. Treatment inconsistency associated with enforced treatment interruptions and
regimen changes feeds uncertainty, absorbed by patients as anxiety:
“You can’t rely on anything, that’s the problem. You cannot rely that there will
be medications. There’s always some shocking news ‘Oh, there will be no
medication, there’s no medication’.” [HIV positive female, 41]
“There is the big question of how to manage it. Will you get enough supplies
for this period or not? These are problems following problems you know.”[HIV
positive female, 40].
As one HIV positive person reports, the weak HIV treatment delivery system affects the
psychological state of people: “They fall into depression. They feel they have no future”.
Such uncertainty and anxiety is exacerbated by an awareness of dependency upon fragile
and unpredictable systems of treatment and expertise (“We are dependent on others”; “We
cannot provide medicines for ourselves”; “If you are lucky someone remembers to call you
and tell you to run to the clinic”). We have found that the HIV treatment experience feeds a
cycle of risk production, with the consequence that some patients fluctuate between hope
10
and hopelessness, between managing their HIV as a chronic condition and as a terminal
illness:
“We started to be desperate at that time because somebody who has been
on treatment for a few years, suddenly they found hope again and when you
don’t have treatment everything is lost.” [HIV positive female, 41]
“If the purpose of all this is to improve quality of life, for these people stress is
the cause of bringing this quality a step lower… Alright, we can’t beat it, we
can’t cure it, but in a way at least allow people, give them some hope, if that’s
what we’re talking about.” [HIV positive female, 35].
HIV treatment providers also need to find ways of coping with the anxieties of failed
treatment expectation whilst recognising that it is people living with HIV who absorb most
of the fallout of lost treatment opportunity (“They [patients] lose control. They are anxious
about it. Their fears about the future rise. It’s very difficult to think about how they manage
their lives”). We have found some participants’ experience of treatment shortages have
undermined their trust in the benefits of ART (“They don’t believe in this therapy after that
[treatment shortage]”). Some people living with HIV decided to stop or not begin ART
because they perceived it to be “more risks than things to gain”.
Participants attributed HIV treatment interruptions in part to the socioeconomic conditions
of their environment. They perceived this to restrict their expectation for secure and
continuous delivery in the future. Some rationed their hope as a way to manage the risks
associated with failed treatment opportunities (“How can I be disappointed if it wasn’t
something I expected?”). Crucially, this environment in which people perceived there to be
limited hope also acted to undermine motivation to participate in community advocacy to
improve treatment opportunities.
This brief case study of the experience of treatment delivery illustrates the role of hope in
mediating risk and outcome. It also demonstrates the negative fallout from an intervention
which fails to deliver on their promises. Such treatment ethnography is as significant in
Serbia or Montenegro as it relates to shortages in medical and equipment supply and
associated forms of ‘treatment rationing’ through enforced regime change and ‘drug
holidays’,[33] as it is in relation to the vast numbers of eligible people living with HIV
awaiting treatment, be this linked to slow treatment roll out as in South Africa [30] or
‘capped’ treatment access as in Togo [37].
11
Conclusion
Social environments are regulators of risk and hope. One feature of risk environments is
that they do not engender hope or encourage long term planning or decision making.
Absence of hope and lack of investment in the future – discounting of the future – may
foster vulnerability to health harm by weakening self and community regulation of risks,
including in relation to HIV. While global initiatives to scale-up access to HIV treatment offer
a discourse of hope, treatment inconsistency and uncertainty are likely to be common
characteristics of long-term free access to treatment in many settings.[32] Hope generated
by discourses of HIV treatment promise inversely introduces fallout in which the fragility of
dependency and fear of disappointment can reproduce a pervasive sense of risk or
insecurity for individuals living with HIV. Treatment without appropriate psychological and
social support exposes individuals to the full blast of health system weaknesses.
It is important to reflect upon the potential social consequences, some unforeseen and
adverse, of HIV behavioural and medical intervention. First, we must recognise that without
hope behaviour is harder to change and long-term treatment harder to achieve. Second, we
need to appreciate how hope relates to structural conditions such as relative social
position, political stability, gender inequality and system operations. Third, we need to
develop prevention and treatment interventions to prevent as well as reduce the human
costs of the potential fallout resulting from loss of hope, including the provision of social
support and contingency or emergency treatment in times of disruption. Lastly, we need a
longer term vision in developing and researching interventions which enable environments
which can shape and sustain hope through HIV prevention and HIV treatment engagement.
Hope is an under researched concept in relation to HIV prevention and treatment. It is a
variable which focuses on the condenser effect of socio-economic environments onto
individual behaviours and is thus a core feature of the degree to which risk environments
enable or disenable sustained consistent HIV treatment and behaviour change.
12
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Rhodes T, Simic M. Transition and the HIV risk environment British Medical
Journal 2005,331:220-223.
Barnett T, Blaikie P. AIDS in Africa: its present and future impact. London:
Belhaven Press; 1992.
Blankenship KM, Bray S, Merson MH. Structural interventions in public
health. AIDS 2000,14 S11-S21.
Groopman J. The Anatomy of Hope. New York: Random House; 2004.
Cutcliffe JR, Herth K. The concept of hope in nursing: its origins,
background and nature. British Journal of Nursing 2002,11:831-840.
Kaiser FF. Former Surgeon General David Satcher Calls for "ABC+Hope"
Approach to HIV Prevention in United States. In: Kaiser Daily HIV/ AIDS
Report; May 27 2004.
Barnett T, Whiteside, A. and Decosas, J. South African Medical Journal 90:
1098-1101. The Jaipur Paradigm: a conceptual framework for
understanding social susceptibility and vulnerability to HIV. 2000,90:10981101.
Mann J, Taranantola, D. and Netter, T. (eds). AIDS in the World: a global
report. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1992.
Appadurai A. The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of
Recognition. In: Culture and Public Action. Edited by Rao V, Walton M.
Washington DC: Stanford UNiversity Press and the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development/ World Bank; 2004:59-84.
Barnett T, Parkhurst J. HIV/AIDS: sex, abstinence, and behaviour change.
Lancet Infect Diseases 2005,5:590-593.
Wilkinson RG. Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality. London:
Routledge; 1996.
Tldai LS. Poverty and HIV/AIDS in South Africa: an empirical contribution.
Journal of Social Aspects of AIDS 2006,3:369-381.
Barnett T, Whiteside A. AIDS in the Twenty First Century: disease and
globalisation. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2002.
Pronyk PM, Hargreaves JR, Kim JC, Morison LA, Phetla G, Watts C, et al.
Effect of a structural intervention for the prevention of intimate partner
violence and HIV in rural South Africa: results of a cluster randomized
trial. Lancet 2006,368:1973-1085.
Snyder CR. Hope and optimism. In: Encyclopedia of human behavior Edited
by Ramachandran VS. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1994:535-542.
Snyder CR, Sympson SC, Ybasco FC, Borders TF, Babyak MA, Higgins RL.
Development and validation of the State Hope Scale Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 1996,2:321-335.
Glass T, McAtee M. Behavioral science at the cross roads in public health:
extending the horizons, envisioning the future. Social Science and Medicine
2006,62:1650-1671.
Marmot M. Self esteem and health. British Medical Journal 2003,327:574-575.
Siegrist J. Place, social exchange and health: proposed sociological
framework. Social Science and Medicine, 2000,51:1283-1293.
Singer M, Toledo E. Oppression Illness: Critical Theory and Intervention
with Women at Risk for AIDS, . Washington, DC: American Anthropology
Association; 1995.
Klinenberg E. Heat Wave. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 2002.
Bjorntorp P. Do stress reactions cause abdominal obesity and
comorbidities? Obesity Review 2001,2:73-86.
13
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Wallace R, Wallace DN. Structured Psychosocial Stress and the US
Obesity Epidemic. Journal of Biological Systems 2005,13:363-384.
Strauss RS, Pollack HA. Epidemic increase in childhood overweight, 19861998. J. of the American Medical Association 2001,286:2845-2848.
Schwartlander B, Grubb I, Perriens J. The 10-year struggle to provide
antiretroviral treatment to people with HIV in the developing world Lancet
2000,368:541-546.
Kim JY, Farmer P. AIDS in 2006- Moving toward One World, One Hope?
New England Journal of Medicine 2006,355:645-647.
Montaner JSG, Hogg R, Wood E, Kerr T, Tyndall M, Levy AR, Harrigan RP.
The case for expanding access to highly antiretroviral therapy to curb the
growth of the HIV epidemic. Lancet 2006,368:531-536.
Knapp C. Antiretrovirals give new hope and new life to South Africans.
Lancet 2004,363:1710.
UN. Declaration of commitment on HIV/AIDS and political declaration on
HIV/AIDS: focus on progress over the past 12 months: Report of the
Secretary General In. New York: United Nations General Assembly; 2007.
Bayer R, Oppenheimer G. Scale Ups, Scaracity and Selections: The
Experience of Doctors in South Africa. AIDS In press.
Collins PY, Holman AR, Freeman MC, Patel V. What is the relevance of
mental health to HIV/AIDS care and treatment programmes in developing
countries? A systematic review. AIDS 2006,20:1571-1582.
Harries AD, Schouten EJ, Libamba E. Scaling up antiretroviral treatment in
resource-poor settings. Lancet 2006,367:1870-1872.
Bernays S, Rhodes T, Prodanovic A. HIV Treatment Access, Delivery and
Uncertainty: A Qualitative Study in Serbia and in Montenegro In. Belgrade:
United Nations Development Program; 2007.
Kasanga K, Bainemigisha H. Doctor urges on ARV scarcity New Vision 2006.
IRIN. Burundi: Outrage and concern over national ARV strategies. IRIN
2007.
Boykewich S. Supply of Anti-HIV Drugs Falls Short. The Moscow Times
2005.
IRIN. Togo: end of grant causes concern. In. Lome; 2006.
Nandi K. ARVs run out. Daily Monitor 2006.
Davis M, Hart G, Imrie J, Davidson O, Williams I, Stephenson J. ‘HIV is HIV to
me’: the meanings of treatment, viral load and reinfections for gay men
living with HIV. Health, Risk & Society 2002,4:31-43.
Brashers DE, Neidig JL, Cardillo LW, Dobbs KW, Russell JA, Haas SM. ‘In an
important way, I did die’: uncertainty and revival in persons living with HIV
and AIDS. AIDS Care 1999,1999.
Rosengarten M, Miris J, Flowers P, Davis M, Hart G. After the euphoria: HIV
medical technologies from the perspective of their prescribers. Sociology
of Health and Illness 2004,26:575-596.
Crossley ML. ‘Sick role’ or ‘Empowerment’? The ambiguities of life with a
HIV positive diagnosis. Social Science and Medicine 1998,20:507-531.
Brashers DE, Neidig JL, Russell JA, Cardillo LW, Haas SM, Dobbs LK, et al.
The medical, personal and social causes of uncertainty in HIV illness.
Issues in Mental Health Nursing 2003,24:497-522.
Barnard D. Chronic illness and the dynamics of hoping. In Chronic Illness
from dynamics to policy. . Bloomington and Indiana: Indiana University Press;
1995.
Kylma J, Vehvilainen- Julkunen K, Lahdevirta J. Hope, despair and
hopelessness in living with HIV/AIDS: a grounded theory study. . Journal
of Advanced Nursing 2001,33:746-775.
14
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
Siegal K, Lekas H. AIDS as a chronic illness: psychosocial implications. .
AIDS 2002,16:S69-S76.
Charmaz K. Good Days, Bad Days: The self in chronic illness and time. .
New Brunswick.: Rutgers University Press; 1991.
Ezzy D. Illness narratives: time, hope and HIV. Social Science and Medicine
2000,50:605-617.
Davies M. Shattered assumptions: Time and the experience of long-term
HIV positivity. Social Science and Medicine 1997,44:561-571.
Bury M. Chronic illness as biographical disruption. Sociology of Health and
Illness 1982,4:167-182.
Williams SJ. Chronic Illness as a biographical disruption or biographical
disruption as chronic illness? Reflections on a core concept. Sociology of
Health and Illness 2000,22:40-67.
Friedman SR, Kippax SC, Phaswana-Mafuya N, Rossi D, Newman CE.
Emerging future issues in HIV/AIDS social research. AIDS 2006,20:959965.
van de Ven P, Kippax S, Knox S, Prestage G, Crawford J. HIV treatment
optimism and sexual behaviour among gay men in Sydney and
Melbourne. AIDS 1999,13:2280-2294.
Smith DJ, Mbakwem BC. Life Projects and Therapeutic Itineraries:
Marriage, Fertility, and Antiretroviral Therapy in Nigeria. AIDS In press.
Van Damme W, Kober K, Laga M. The real challenges for scaling up ART in
sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS 2006,20:653-656.
Stein J, Lewin S, Fairall L. Hope is the pillar of the universe- health care
providers' experiences of delivering anti-retroviral therapy in primary
health care clinics in the Free State province of South Africa. Social
Science and Medicine 2007,64:954-964.
DfID. HIV and AIDS Treatment and Care Policy. In. London: DfID; 2004.
Chesney M. Adherence to HAART regimens. AIDS Patient Care STDS
2003,17:160-177.
Kielmann K, Deshmukh D, Deshpande S, Datye V, Porter J, Rangan S.
Managing uncertainty around HIV/AIDS in an urban setting: Private
medical providers and their patients in Pune, India. Social Science and
Medicine 2005,61:1540-1550.
15