IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v108y2014icp166-174.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advancing methodology in the study of HIV status disclosure: The importance of considering disclosure target and intent

Author

Listed:
  • Dima, Alexandra L.
  • Stutterheim, Sarah E.
  • Lyimo, Ramsey
  • de Bruin, Marijn

Abstract

Disclosure of HIV status has been the focus of three decades of research, which have revealed its complex relations to many behaviors involved in HIV prevention and treatment, and exposed its central role in managing the HIV epidemic. The causes and consequences of disclosure acts have recently been the subject of several theoretical models. Although it is acknowledged that individual disclosure events are part of a broader process of disclosing one's HIV status to an increasing number of people, this process has received less theoretical attention. In quantitative studies of disclosure, researchers have often implicitly assumed that disclosure is a single unidimensional process appropriately measured via the total number of one's disclosure acts. However, there is also evidence that disclosure may have different causes and consequences depending on the types of actors involved (e.g. family members, friends) and on the presence or absence of the discloser's intention, suggesting that the unidimensionality assumption may not hold. We quantitatively examined the dimensionality of voluntary and involuntary disclosure to different categories of actors, using data collected via structured interviews in the spring of 2010 from 158 people living with HIV in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. For voluntary disclosure, nonparametric item response analyses identified two multi-category clusters, family and community, and two single-category dimensions, partner and children. Involuntary disclosure consisted of several single- or two-category dimensions. Correlation analyses between the resulting disclosure dimensions and stigma and social support revealed distinct relationships for each disclosure dimension. Our results suggest that treating disclosure as a unidimensional construct is a simplification of disclosure processes that may lead to incorrect conclusions about disclosure correlates. We therefore recommend examining disclosure acts jointly to identify sample-specific dimensions before examining causes and consequences of disclosure. We propose a methodology for investigating disclosure processes, and recommend its adoption in future disclosure studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Dima, Alexandra L. & Stutterheim, Sarah E. & Lyimo, Ramsey & de Bruin, Marijn, 2014. "Advancing methodology in the study of HIV status disclosure: The importance of considering disclosure target and intent," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 166-174.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:108:y:2014:i:c:p:166-174
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795361400149X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.045?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Ark, L. Andries, 2007. "Mokken Scale Analysis in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 20(i11).
    2. Klaas Sijtsma & Bas Hemker, 1998. "Nonparametric polytomous IRT models for invariant item ordering, with results for parametric models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 63(2), pages 183-200, June.
    3. van Schuur, Wijbrandt H., 2003. "Mokken Scale Analysis: Between the Guttman Scale and Parametric Item Response Theory," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 139-163, April.
    4. Norman, A. & Chopra, M. & Kadiyala, S., 2007. "Factors related to HIV disclosure in 2 South African communities," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 97(10), pages 1775-1781.
    5. Chaudoir, Stephenie R. & Fisher, Jeffrey D. & Simoni, Jane M., 2011. "Understanding HIV disclosure: A review and application of the Disclosure Processes Model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(10), pages 1618-1629, May.
    6. Sherbourne, Cathy Donald & Stewart, Anita L., 1991. "The MOS social support survey," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 705-714, January.
    7. Klaas Sijtsma & Ivo Molenaar, 1987. "Reliability of test scores in nonparametric item response theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 52(1), pages 79-97, March.
    8. Peretti-Watel, P. & Spire, B. & Schiltz, M.A. & Bouhnik, A.D. & Heard, I. & Lert, F. & Obadia, Y., 2006. "Vulnerability, unsafe sex and non-adherence to HAART: Evidence from a large sample of French HIV/AIDS outpatients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2420-2433, May.
    9. van der Ark, L. Andries, 2012. "New Developments in Mokken Scale Analysis in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i05).
    10. Obermeyer, C.M. & Baijal, P. & Pegurri, E., 2011. "Facilitating HIV disclosure across diverse settings: A review," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(6), pages 1011-1023.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sikstrom, Laura, 2018. "“There was no love there”: Intergenerational HIV disclosure, and late presentation for antiretroviral therapy in Northern Malawi," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 175-182.
    2. Préau, Marie & Beaulieu-Prévost, Dominic & Henry, Emilie & Bernier, Adeline & Veillette-Bourbeau, Ludivine & Otis, Joanne, 2015. "HIV serostatus disclosure: development and validation of indicators considering target and modality. Results from a community-based research in 5 countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 137-146.
    3. Nella Otoobea Anakwa & Enoch Teye-Kwadjo & Irene A. Kretchy, 2021. "Effect of HIV-Related Stigma and HIV-Related Stress on HIV Disclosure Concerns: a Study of HIV-Positive Persons on Antiretroviral Therapy at Two Urban Hospitals in Ghana," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 16(3), pages 1249-1264, June.
    4. Bach Xuan Tran & Long Hoang Nguyen & Tung Thanh Tran & Carl A Latkin, 2018. "Social and structural barriers for adherence to methadone maintenance treatment among Vietnamese opioid dependence patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anne-Linda Camerini & Peter J. Schulz, 2018. "Social Desirability Bias in Child-Report Social Well-Being: Evaluation of the Children’s Social Desirability Short Scale Using Item Response Theory and Examination of Its Impact on Self-Report Family ," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 11(4), pages 1159-1174, August.
    2. Jesper Tijmstra & Maria Bolsinova, 2019. "Bayes Factors for Evaluating Latent Monotonicity in Polytomous Item Response Theory Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(3), pages 846-869, September.
    3. Préau, Marie & Beaulieu-Prévost, Dominic & Henry, Emilie & Bernier, Adeline & Veillette-Bourbeau, Ludivine & Otis, Joanne, 2015. "HIV serostatus disclosure: development and validation of indicators considering target and modality. Results from a community-based research in 5 countries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 137-146.
    4. Coromina, Lluís & Camprubí, Raquel, 2016. "Analysis of tourism information sources using a Mokken Scale perspective," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 75-84.
    5. Rudy Ligtvoet & L. Ark & Wicher Bergsma & Klaas Sijtsma, 2011. "Polytomous Latent Scales for the Investigation of the Ordering of Items," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 76(2), pages 200-216, April.
    6. Andersson-Hudson, Jessica & Rose, Jonathan & Humphrey, Mathew & Knight, Wil & O'Hara, Sarah, 2019. "The structure of attitudes towards shale gas extraction in the United Kingdom," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 693-697.
    7. Penny Bee & Chris Gibbons & Patrick Callaghan & Claire Fraser & Karina Lovell, 2016. "Evaluating and Quantifying User and Carer Involvement in Mental Health Care Planning (EQUIP): Co-Development of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, March.
    8. César Merino-Soto & Gina Chávez-Ventura & Verónica López-Fernández & Guillermo M. Chans & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-L): Psychometric and Measurement Invariance Evidence in Peruvian Undergraduate Students," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    9. Rita Saleh & Angela Bearth & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "“Chemophobia” Today: Consumers’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2668-2682, December.
    10. van der Ark, L. Andries, 2012. "New Developments in Mokken Scale Analysis in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i05).
    11. César Merino-Soto & Milagros Lozano-Huamán & Sadith Lima-Mendoza & Gustavo Calderón de la Cruz & Arturo Juárez-García & Filiberto Toledano-Toledano, 2022. "Ultrashort Version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-3): A Psychometric Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-14, January.
    12. Bastiaan Bruinsma, 2020. "A comparison of measures to validate scales in voting advice applications," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 1299-1316, August.
    13. Wangnan Cao & Hai Ming Wong & Chun Chang & Emeka Pascal Agudile & Anna Mia Ekström, 2019. "Behavioral interventions promoting HIV serostatus disclosure to sex partners among HIV-positive men who have sex with men: a systematic review," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 64(7), pages 985-998, September.
    14. Mirko Antino & Jesús M. Alvarado & Rodrigo A. Asún & Paul Bliese, 2020. "Rethinking the Exploration of Dichotomous Data: Mokken Scale Analysis Versus Factorial Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 49(4), pages 839-867, November.
    15. Mazza, Angelo & Punzo, Antonio & McGuire, Brian, 2014. "KernSmoothIRT: An R Package for Kernel Smoothing in Item Response Theory," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 58(i06).
    16. Tyrone B. Pretorius & P. Paul Heppner & Anita Padmanabhanunni & Serena Ann Isaacs, 2023. "The PSI-20: Development of a Viable Short Form Alternative of the Problem Solving Inventory Using Item Response Theory," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    17. Jules Ellis, 2014. "An Inequality for Correlations in Unidimensional Monotone Latent Variable Models for Binary Variables," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 303-316, April.
    18. Wickelmaier, Florian & Strobl, Carolin & Zeileis, Achim, 2012. "Psychoco: Psychometric Computing in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i01).
    19. Martin Komarc & Ivana Harbichová & Lawrence M Scheier, 2020. "Psychometric validation of Czech version of the Sport Motivation Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, January.
    20. Jules L. Ellis & Klaas Sijtsma, 2023. "A Test to Distinguish Monotone Homogeneity from Monotone Multifactor Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 387-412, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:108:y:2014:i:c:p:166-174. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.