IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0293824.html

HIV-sensitive social protection for unemployed and out-of-school young women in Botswana: An exploratory study of barriers and solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Ran van der Wal
  • Anne Cockcroft
  • Miriam Kobo
  • Leagajang Kgakole
  • Nobantu Marokaone
  • Mira Johri
  • Isabelle Vedel
  • Neil Andersson

Abstract

Promotive social protection programs aim to increase income and capabilities and could help address structural drivers of HIV-vulnerability like poverty, lack of education and gender inequality. Unemployed and out-of-school young women bear the brunt of HIV infection in Botswana, but rarely benefit from such economic empowerment programs. Using a qualitative exploratory study design and a participatory research approach, we explored factors affecting perceived program benefit and potential solutions to barriers. Direct stakeholders (n = 146) included 87 unemployed and out-of-school young women and 59 program and technical officers in five intervention districts. Perceived barriers were identified in 20 semi-structured interviews (one intervention district) and 11 fuzzy cognitive maps. Co-constructed improvement recommendations were generated in deliberative dialogues. Analysis relied on Framework and the socioecological model. Overall, participants viewed existing programs in Botswana as ineffective and inadequate to empower vulnerable young women socially or economically. Factors affecting perceived program benefit related to programs, program officers, the young women, and their social and structural environment. Participants perceived barriers at every socioecological level. Young women’s lack of life and job skills, unhelpful attitudes, and irresponsible behaviors were personal-level barriers. At an interpersonal level, competing care responsibilities, lack of support from boyfriends and family, and negative peer influence impeded program benefit. Traditional venues for information dissemination, poverty, inequitable gender norms, and lack of coordination were community- and structural-level barriers. Improvement recommendations focused on improved outreach and peer approaches to implement potential solutions. Unemployed and out-of-school young women face multidimensional, interacting barriers that prevent benefit from available promotive social protection programs in Botswana. To become HIV-sensitive, these socioeconomic empowerment programs would need to accommodate or preferentially attract this key population. This requires more generous and comprehensive programs, a more client-centered program delivery, and improved coordination. Such structural changes require a holistic, intersectoral approach to HIV-sensitive social protection.

Suggested Citation

  • Ran van der Wal & Anne Cockcroft & Miriam Kobo & Leagajang Kgakole & Nobantu Marokaone & Mira Johri & Isabelle Vedel & Neil Andersson, 2024. "HIV-sensitive social protection for unemployed and out-of-school young women in Botswana: An exploratory study of barriers and solutions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(1), pages 1-22, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0293824
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0293824
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0293824&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0293824?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Smith, Patricia & Martin, Elisabeth & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2003. "Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 239-251, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sadie McEvoy & Frans H. M. van de Ven & Reinder Brolsma & Jill H. Slinger, 2019. "Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and Effects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Giuseppe Di Liddo & Annalisa Vinella, 2021. "Centralized standards and local taxation in municipal waste management," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(4), pages 603-619, December.
    3. Monica Billger & Liane Thuvander & Beata Stahre Wästberg, 2017. "In search of visualization challenges: The development and implementation of visualization tools for supporting dialogue in urban planning processes," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 44(6), pages 1012-1035, November.
    4. Lehoux, P. & Daudelin, G. & Abelson, J., 2012. "The unbearable lightness of citizens within public deliberation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(12), pages 1843-1850.
    5. Smith, K.E. & Stewart, E.A., 2017. "Academic advocacy in public health: Disciplinary ‘duty’ or political ‘propaganda’?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 35-43.
    6. Lehoux, Pascale & Daudelin, Genevieve & Demers-Payette, Olivier & Boivin, Antoine, 2009. "Fostering deliberations about health innovation: What do we want to know from publics?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2002-2009, June.
    7. Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2005. "Shared Visions, Unholy Alliances: Power, Governance and Deliberative Processes in Local Transport Planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(12), pages 2123-2144, November.
    8. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    9. Real, Alejandra & Hickey, Gordon M., 2013. "Publicly funded research: A participative experience from the Chilean Native Forest Research Fund," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 37-43.
    10. Forde, Hannah & Scarborough, Peter & Yates, Lucy & Renzella, Jessica & Sheehan, Mark & Buckell, John & O’Hagan, Alice & Taylor, Sian & Ward, Jane & Connolly, Annie & Rayner, Mike & Smith, Richard & Ka, 2025. "Public support for food subsidy and tax scenarios to promote healthy and sustainable diets: Evidence from deliberative forums in two UK locations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    11. Irene Fafaliou & Euthalia Tzanalaridou & Apostolos Ballas, 2010. "Is Rationing an Option for Approaching Healthcare Services Provision? The Case of the Greek Cardiac Patients," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 16(1), pages 109-121, February.
    12. repec:cep:sticas:/184 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    14. Swaans, Kees & Broerse, Jacqueline & Meincke, Maylin & Mudhara, Maxwell & Bunders, Joske, 2009. "Promoting food security and well-being among poor and HIV/AIDS affected households: Lessons from an interactive and integrated approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 31-42, February.
    15. Mauro Serapioni & Pedro Lopes Ferreira & Patrícia Antunes, 2014. "Participação em Saúde: Conceitos e Conteúdos," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 40, pages 26-42, December.
    16. Hardev Kaur Latchimanan Singh, 2017. "Evaluating Public Participation Mechanisms in LA21 Programs in Malaysia," GATR Journals gjbssr482, Global Academy of Training and Research (GATR) Enterprise.
    17. Ruth Wouters & Bieke De Fraine & Maarten Simons, 2019. "What is at Stake in Deliberative Inquiry? A Review About a Deliberative Practice," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 193-217, April.
    18. Degeling, Chris & Rychetnik, Lucie & Street, Jackie & Thomas, Rae & Carter, Stacy M., 2017. "Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 166-171.
    19. Anita Gębska-Kuczerowska & Sudakshina Lahiri & Robert Gajda, 2020. "Bridging the Gap between Theory, Practice, and Policy: A Decision-Making Process Based on Public Health Evidence Feasible in Multi-Stage Research on Biological Risk Factors in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-11, October.
    20. Sami Mahroum & Simon Bell & Yasser Al-Saleh & Nasser Yassin, 2016. "Towards an Effective Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Process: Applying the Imagine Method in Context of Abu Dhabi’s Education Policy," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 335-353, August.
    21. Mavrommati, Georgia & Borsuk, Mark E. & Kreiley, Allison I. & Larosee, Christopher & Rogers, Shannon & Burford, Klancey & Howarth, Richard B., 2021. "A methodological framework for understanding shared social values in deliberative valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0293824. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.