Measuring Aids stigmas in people living with HIV/AIDS: the Internalized Aids-Related Stigma Scale. 1. Write a brief description and summary of your article.
The objective is to measure the psychometric properties of instruments to measure Internalized Aids-Related Stigmas.
This article talks about the psychometric measurement of people living with Internalized Aids Related Stigmas (IARS) and the effect that IARS has on communities and individuals. It reviews the notion that stigma is the real driver of poor uptake of testing and treatment services. 2. What type of research method was used to collect data for this study?
Data was collected through 3 cities/countries. Men and woman diverse in ages, race and culture were recruited from medical centers in these cities/countries.
Questions on the surveys covered age, race employment, marital status, hospitalization and the year and month they were tested positive. Items were selected from the IARS scale (Kalichman 2005) and reframed and reworded to show negative self-perceptions in being a person living with HIV/Aids.
The question were answered with 1 = agree and 0 = disagree. The higher scores representing Internalized Stigma. 3. Why do you think the researchers chose this method for this study?
The article focuses on the methodology of measuring IARS scale. The objective of these structures is to create and validate the items to measure IARS. The method has been used before and has proven to be consistent and accurate. 4. What were the results and major conclusions of the study?
Although the IARS scale proved useful in HIV/AIDS research, there were limitations in the study.
The study should have been conducted on a more vast scale as it was only conducted in well-developed and well-resourced cities. It needed further research in rural and undeveloped areas. It also only dealt with 2 discrimination experiences and some participants may have misinterpreted the questions, confusing social versus medical.
It also needed to examine the origins of negative self-debasing perceptions among people living with HIV/AIDS. 5. CRITICAL THINKING; is there anything about the study, method or conclusion that raises questions in your mind?
The only thing that raises questions is why they not used a scale development that was more representative of people living with IARS. This would have been more useful in society. 6. What other studies would you like to see that is either related to this study or that would take this study further?
I would like to see them using these studies to further the public’s knowledge about the disease. HIV/AIDS related stigma is invoked as a persistent problem in any discussion of effective response to the disease. It is also a major barrier to accessing prevention and care. Tackling stigmas and making the public aware, can lead to the reduction of stigmas. Often tackling stigma reduction efforts are on the bottom of Aids program priorities and this should not be the case. 7. Overall personal reaction to study. (Example: what did you learn, was it interesting or boring or too technical, etc.)
The dearth of psychometric measurement studies is noteworthy because the critique of the available assessment has not been validated. I needs to access more on “the mark of disgrace”, which is deeply discrediting from a whole and usual person to tainted and discounted person. It needs to show that stigma is the real driver of poor uptake of treatment and services. Reducing stigma’s may turn HIV/AIDS into a treatable chronic disease (versus Death).
Although this study was interesting in some place it was too technical, but ultimately it shows that different methods need to be utilized in the IARSS.