Jump to comment:

• Reference Section Error
  Amanda R Feist
  Published on: 13 May 2016
• Gender Transformation and Population Approaches to Addressing Gender-Based Violence and HIV
  Ashley M. Fox
  Published on: 13 May 2016
• Men as Partners Programs
  Lindiwe Farlane
  Published on: 13 May 2016

• Published on: 13 May 2016

  Reference Section Error

  • Amanda R Feist, Librarian

  Dear Editor

  I noticed an error in the editorial "Effective HIV prevention requires gender-transformative work with men" by Kristin L. Dunkle and Rachel Jewkes. The list should indicate that the first article referenced, "How men’s power over women fuels the HIV epidemic" by G.R. Gupta, is from the 324th, not the 321st, volume (issue 7331). At this time, your web site's Crossref link links to a review of a movie, 28...

  Show More

  Dear Editor

  I noticed an error in the editorial "Effective HIV prevention requires gender-transformative work with men" by Kristin L. Dunkle and Rachel Jewkes. The list should indicate that the first article referenced, "How men’s power over women fuels the HIV epidemic" by G.R. Gupta, is from the 324th, not the 321st, volume (issue 7331). At this time, your web site's Crossref link links to a review of a movie, 28 Days. In addition to the confusion this may (and has) cause readers, it also detracts from the referenced author's citation record.

  Sincerely,

  
  Amanda Feist

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 13 May 2016

  Gender Transformation and Population Approaches to Addressing Gender-Based Violence and HIV

  • Ashley M. Fox, Ph.D. Candidate

  Dear Editor,

  In the June 2007 issue of Sexually Transmitted Infections, Dunkle and Jewkes make a much needed case for increased attention to the role of gender-based violence (GBV) in fueling the HIV pandemic. In their editorial, Dunkle and Jewkes assert that "social ideals of asculinity," including, inter alia, heterosexual success with women in the context of an entrenched gender hierarchy and the ability to contro...

  Show More

  Dear Editor,

  In the June 2007 issue of Sexually Transmitted Infections, Dunkle and Jewkes make a much needed case for increased attention to the role of gender-based violence (GBV) in fueling the HIV pandemic. In their editorial, Dunkle and Jewkes assert that "social ideals of asculinity," including, inter alia, heterosexual success with women in the context of an entrenched gender hierarchy and the ability to control women, is an underlying cause of the observed association between violence perpetration and sexual risk taking among men. Referring to an article published in the same issue of Sexually Transmitted Infections regarding gender-based violence and STI risk in Bangladesh, they find mounting evidence for national generalizability across a range of cultural settings "supporting the link between perpetration of GBV and STI/HIV risk". Lastly, they recommend replicating gender transformative interventions with men, such as the Stepping Stones program, in order to address the underlying causes of gendered HIV risk, namely repressive gender norms and socioeconomic inequality that serve to disempower women vis-á-vis men. Their commentary is welcome, especially in a policy climate that is increasingly turning towards biomedical and non-gender transformative solutions to HIV, such as male circumcision to stem the tide of a continually mounting epidemic.

  While agreeing with the spirit of their editorial, I question the logic that they use to derive their recommendations and propose an alternative method for analyzing the relationship among social ideals of masculinity, gender-based violence and HIV/STI transmission using an ecologic and comparative framework to explain population-level variations in GBV and HIV risk.

  Dunkle and Jewkes accurately point to the growing body of evidence that demonstrates unequivocally that women who experience GBV and gender inequitable attitudes are at greater risk of HIV at the individual level. However, despite this association at the individual level, at the ecologic level it does not necessarily hold that countries or regions with high rates of GBV/gender inequality experience heightened rates of HIV/STIs. For instance, although the WHO multi-country study on GBV has found that Bangladesh has among the highest rates of GBV of the countries studied¹ (findings reinforced in the Silverman et al study), Bangladesh as of 2005 has a negligible national HIV prevalence rate of <0.1% (see table 1). Evidence suggests that Muslim societies, though often endorsing highly repressive gender norms, have extremely low rates of HIV/STIs.² In fact, it may be the repressive sexual culture of these countries/regions that is protective against HIV, limiting opportunities for marital infidelity and sexual liberty.

  

  Likewise, the WHO multi-country study found Ethiopia’s and Peru’s prevalence of intimate partner violence to be the highest of the ten countries under study respectively; yet, adult HIV prevalence was estimated at 4.4% in Ethiopia in 2003 and 0.6% in Peru as of 2005. Countries with higher national HIV prevalence rates, including Namibia (19.6% in 2005) and Tanzania (6.5% in 2005), exhibited relatively lower rates of GBV (see table 1). Further, whereas HIV prevalence rates tend to be higher in urban areas,³ according to the WHO multi-country study results, GBV is more common in rural (provincial) settings while urban residence appears to have a protective effect. In essence, Dunkle and Jewkes’ comment commits the atomistic fallacy, or incorrectly generalizing an individual-level association to the group level.⁴ In order to assess the contribution of GBV to HIV at the ecologic level, studies must move from thinking about the replication of findings in different settings to a comparative, population-level framework. The disciplines of sociology, political science and economics routinely use cross-national data to test hypotheses about variations in social phenomena across countries.⁵ In his classic piece “Sick Individuals and Sick Populations”, epidemiologist Geoffrey Rose (1985) reminds us that the question,“‘Why do individuals have hypertension?’ is a quite different question from ‘why do some populations have much hypertension, whilst in others it is rare?’”.⁶ In order to address this second question, Rose argues that “what distinguishes the two groups is nothing to do with the characteristics of individuals, it is rather a shift of the whole distribution- a mass influence acting on the population as a whole.” In public health, cross-national comparisons can shed light on a host of important public health questions, including those related to GBV and HIV. To reframe Rose’s question, ‘Why are individuals who experience GBV more likely to contract HIV?’ is a very different question from ‘Why do some countries experience higher rates of GBV and how does this affect population rates of HIV infection?’

  In the case of HIV, it remains somewhat of a mystery how individual HIV risk factors link up to population risk. Ultimately, due to the limited number of transmission routes, some variation in behavior between populations, coupled with a tipping point and possible biomedical transmissible cofactors must be responsible for the heightened rate of HIV in certain populations. More evidence is needed to explain under what conditions gender inequitable beliefs and behaviors link up with population-level GBV and HIV risk.

  Furthermore, interventions aimed at transforming a group level characteristic, such as repressive gender norms, should focus on interventions that address the ecologic or structural level.⁷ There is intuitively a contradiction inherent in using individual-level interventions to induce broad, socially transformative gender equality. Social change does not proceed one individual at a time, but rather when, in Rose’s words, there is a “mass influence causing a shift in the whole distribution”. In order to understand what that mass influence is, and to intervene at the population level, one must know what constitute the population-level risk factors. More research must be conducted on why HIV prevalence rates vary so greatly within and between countries despite similar risk factors, such as high rates of GBV. Differences in collection and reporting of national HIV sero-prevalence estimates previously hampered comparative research of cross-national HIV prevalence. However, new data sources, notably Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) with linked HIV testing results are an extraordinarily rich, new data source that has not yet been fully exploited to address questions regarding the social-structural and population-level determinants of HIV infection and GBV. Further, comparable national probability samples such as those utilized in the DHS allow for national estimates of GBV that can facilitate cross-national and intra-national comparisons of ecologic-level risk factors.

  This comment is in solidarity with Dunkle and Jewkes’ contention that “broad socially transformative programs that promote gender equality and discourage perpetration of gender-based violence and are needed to combat the global HIV pandemic”. It is clear in countries with highly generalized HIV epidemics that reducing gender inequality and sexually empowering women are crucial to stem the spread of HIV. However, the modes by which to generate social transformation must stem from an understanding of the macro-level causes of differing social phenomena across populations. Dunkle and Jewkes point to microbicides as a gender-sensitive technology, but one that fails to address the “underlying social constructions of gender”. To this I would add male circumcision, an anti-HIV intervention increasingly gaining in prominence, which also fails to transform the broader constructions of gender in society and arguably has the potential to actually reinforce entrenched gender norms and male power. In keeping with recent literature, GBV should be addressed as a public health problem and human rights concern in its own right⁸ and not solely in relation to its instrumental association with reducing HIV and STI prevalence. Public health interventions that reinforce gender inequality and gendered power relations should be eschewed in favor of gender transformative interventions that proceed at the population level.

  References

  1. World Health Organization. Summary Report, WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses, 2005. Retrieved June 25, 2007, from http://www.who.int/gender/violence/who_multicountry_study/en/index.html. See also, Garcia-Moreno C, Jansen H, Ellsberg M. Prevalence of intimate partner violence: findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence, Lancet 2006; 368:1260-1269

  2. Gray PB. HIV and Islam: is HIV prevalence lower among Muslims? Soc Sci Med 2004;58:1751–1756.

  3. Shelton JD, Cassell MM, Adetunji J. Is poverty or wealth at the root of HIV? Lancet 2005; 366(9491): 1057.

  4. Leyland AH, Groenewegen PP. Multilevel modeling and public health policy, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 2003; 31(4):267-274.

  5. e.g., Dogan M, Pelassy D. How to compare nations: strategies in comparative politics. New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, 1984.

  6. Rose G. Sick individuals and sick populations, Int J Epidemiol 2001;30:427-432.

  7. Blankenship KM, Friedman SR, Dworkin S, et al. Structural Interventions: Concepts, Challenges and Opportunities for Research, Journal of Urban Health 2006;83(1):59-72.

  8. Brundtland GH. Violence, health, and human rights: toward a shared agenda for prevention, Health and Human Rights: An International Journal 2003;6(2): 11-13.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top
• Published on: 13 May 2016

  Men as Partners Programs

  • Lindiwe Farlane, Youth Programs Officer

  Dear Editor,

  Recently the world has seen a growing number of "transformative programs" engaging men in eradicating gender-based violence and reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS. The global Men as Partners Program (MAP) implemented by EngenderHealth in 20 countries since 1998, primariliy, targets various groups of men through ecological model to transform male gender norms. The purpose of MAP is twofold: 1) to challenge t...

  Show More

  Dear Editor,

  Recently the world has seen a growing number of "transformative programs" engaging men in eradicating gender-based violence and reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS. The global Men as Partners Program (MAP) implemented by EngenderHealth in 20 countries since 1998, primariliy, targets various groups of men through ecological model to transform male gender norms. The purpose of MAP is twofold: 1) to challenge the attitudes, values, and behaviors of men that compromise their own health and safety as well as the health and safety of women and children and 2)to encourage men to become actively involved in preventing Gender Based Violence as well as HIV/AIDS-related prevention, care and support activities.

  Results from various pre-workshop and post-workshop evaluations have indicated that men's participation in the MAP workshops have resulted in some attitudinal changes in South Africa. More scientific evaluations in 1). Nepal resulted in increased utilization of Family planning services by men and women and increased utilization of STI services by men. 2.)In Swaziland and Botswana, promoting positive male behavior norms through participatory theatre, resulted in male participants/audience members expressing to be challenged by messages. More than 60% of the audience believed the elimination of gender-based violence is both critical and urgent.

  The need lies with demonstrating the linkages between these programs that target men with the women focused programs for the common cause.

  Show Less

  Conflict of Interest:
  None declared.

  • Back to top