Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2010
Structural interventions for HIV prevention in the United States.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Adimora Adaora A, Auerbach Judith D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Structural interventions change the environment in which people act to influence their health behaviors. Most structural interventions research for HIV infection has focused on developing countries, with the United States receiving substantially less attention. This article identifies some social determinants of HIV vulnerability in the United States and structural interventions to address them.
METHODS: Review of the medical, public health, and social science literature.
RESULTS: Evidence supports widespread implementation of a number of structural interventions in the United States clearly proximate to HIV, including comprehensive sex education, universal condom availability, expanded syringe access for drug users, health care coverage, and stable housing. Sociological plausibility supports evaluation and implementation of other interventions that target social determinants more distal but of relevance to HIV, such as initiatives to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in criminal sentencing, to promote early childhood education and to decrease poverty.
CONCLUSIONS: Structural interventions that address social determinants of HIV infection may be among the most cost effective methods of preventing HIV infection in the United States over the long term.
METHODS: Review of the medical, public health, and social science literature.
RESULTS: Evidence supports widespread implementation of a number of structural interventions in the United States clearly proximate to HIV, including comprehensive sex education, universal condom availability, expanded syringe access for drug users, health care coverage, and stable housing. Sociological plausibility supports evaluation and implementation of other interventions that target social determinants more distal but of relevance to HIV, such as initiatives to eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in criminal sentencing, to promote early childhood education and to decrease poverty.
CONCLUSIONS: Structural interventions that address social determinants of HIV infection may be among the most cost effective methods of preventing HIV infection in the United States over the long term.