Open Access

Stigmatization among methadone maintenance treatment patients in mountainous areas in northern Vietnam

  • Hung Van Nguyen1,
  • Huong Lan Thi Nguyen2Email author,
  • Hue Thi Mai2,
  • Hai Quan Le3,
  • Bach Xuan Tran4, 5,
  • Canh Dinh Hoang1,
  • Huong Thi Le4,
  • Cuong Tat Nguyen2,
  • Tho Dinh Tran6,
  • Carl A. Latkin5 and
  • Thuc Minh Thi Vu7
Harm Reduction Journal201714:1

DOI: 10.1186/s12954-016-0127-9

Received: 30 September 2016

Accepted: 7 December 2016

Published: 6 January 2017

Abstract

Background

Stigma and discrimination may adversely affect the benefits of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) for drug users, especially in disadvantaged settings. This study assessed stigma and discrimination against MMT patients in the mountainous and rural areas in Vietnam and explored their associated factors to inform implementation strategies.

Methods

We interviewed 241 MMT patients in two clinics: one in Tuyen Quang Province’s inner city and the other in Son Duong District, to assess stigma and discrimination that patients perceived and experienced. Socioeconomic status, health behaviors, health status, and history of drug abuse were examined. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models were used to explore factors associated with stigma and discrimination.

Results

The majority of respondents reported experiencing stigma and discrimination including blame/judgment (95.1%), shame (95.1%), disclosure (71.4%), and the fear of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission by others (74.1%). Unemployed patients were more likely to experience discrimination (Coef = −1.18, 95% CI = −1.87; −0.89). Those who were taking an antiretroviral were more likely to disclose their health status (Coef = 2.27, 95% CI = 0.6; 3.94). In addition, a higher likelihood of being blamed/judged and shamed was associated with those who suffered from anxiety/depression (Coef = 1.59, 95% CI = 0.24; 2.93 and Coef = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.36; 1.79, respectively).

Conclusions

MMT patients in these mountainous areas perceived high levels of stigma and discrimination which were associated with mental health disorders, unemployment, and HIV infection. These findings highlighted the importance of reducing drug use and HIV-related stigma against high-risk populations. Besides, psychosocial and familial supports, as well as job referrals, also play crucial roles in terms of promoting quality of life among MMT patients.

Keywords

Stigma Discrimination Methadone maintenance treatment Mountainous area Vietnam

Background

Illicit drug misuse is a major global public health issue. People who inject drugs (PWID) are more vulnerable to various factors including the transmission of infectious diseases [1]. In 2015, approximately 65% of all people living with HIV were PWID [2]. A study carried out in northern Vietnam also revealed significantly high prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), and hepatitis C virus (HCV) among PWID (42.4, 80.9, and 74.1%, respectively) [3].

In response, Vietnam has shown vigorous efforts to reduce the number of drug users as well as the incidence of drug injection-related blood-borne diseases at both national and international levels. The methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) program was first introduced in Vietnam in 1996–1997, and by 2012, 61 MMT clinics were available, providing treatment for 20 cities and provinces across the country [4]. In 2006, harm reduction programs were implemented in 21 provinces with various interventions including providing sterile syringes and condoms, changing behavior, and counseling [5]. Vietnam has committed that, by 2020, 90% HIV-positive people know their status, 90% of those diagnosed with HIV engage in antiretroviral therapy (ART), and 90% of ART patients have durable viral suppression (“90-90-90” targets) [6].

Harm reduction services have shown promising results. For instance, the previous literature revealed that MMT could promote the quality of life, reduce the frequency of illicit drug use [7], and minimize HIV-related risk behaviors among illicit drug users [710]. Moreover, a needle exchange program (NEP) was effective in reducing blood-borne diseases [11].

However, these programs face formidable challenges partly due to high levels of stigma associated with drug use [12]. These hamper the effectiveness of drug treatment [13], limit the access to drug and HIV/AIDS treatment [14], negatively affect health status, and reduce treatment adherence [15, 16]. Therefore, to maximize the effectiveness of harm reduction services, attention should be drawn to the prevalence of stigma and discrimination experience by drug users.

Stigma and discrimination against most-at-risk populations have been studied in different health care settings in Vietnam [1719]; very few studies, however, have drawn much attention to rural and mountainous areas where HIV has been increasingly prevalent [20]. This study, therefore, aims to examine stigma among MMT patients in mountainous areas in northern Vietnam.

Methods

Study setting and sampling method

We conducted a cross-sectional study from May to August 2016 in Tuyen Quang Province. Two MMT clinics were involved in the study: one in Tuyen Quang City, a third-grade urban area, and the other in Son Duong District, a rural area. In fact, there are three MMT centers in Tuyen Quang Province; however, we excluded one, Yen Son District, because only nine patients have been treated in this clinic due to its new establishment. Methadone treatment in the two clinics is free of charge and funded by the Australian government and the Royal Dutch government. Apart from daily methadone treatment, patients also receive health counseling from health staffs working at these sites.

The sample included patients taking MMT in the selected sites. The eligibility criteria included (1) taking or initiating MMT in the selected sites, (2) presenting at the clinics during the study period, (3) being 18 years old or above, (4) having the capacity to answer the questionnaire, and (5) agreeing to participate. We approached all patients who were at the clinics and introduced the study. Those who met the eligibility criteria were invited to enroll and gave written informed consent if they agreed to participate upon the understanding of the study’s purposes. Interviews were administered in a private room. The patients did not receive any compensation given that the medication was provided free of charge. A convenient sample of 241 patients was recruited in the study. The response rate was 80–90% across the two sites.

Measurements and instruments

Face-to-face interviews were conducted by well-trained interviewers including health staffs working at the Center for Preventive Medicine, Tuyen Quang Province, and master’s students of public health at Hanoi Medical University.

Socioeconomic characteristics

Socioeconomic characteristics included age, gender, education level, marital status, employment status, ethnicity, religion, and household monthly income. Household monthly spending was measured with two elements: recurring/regular expenditure (namely food, clothes, rent, utility, education) in the last 30 days and non-recurring/irregular expenditure (e.g., health care, furniture, occasions, travel, construction) in the last 12 months [21, 22].

Health status

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was measured by using the EuroQol-five dimensions-five levels (EQ-5D-5L) instrument. The instrument comprises five domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression, with five levels of response: no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems, and extreme problems. To compute those indexes, we employed the interim scoring for EQ-5D-5L from the cross-walk value set of Thailand due to the unavailability of the Vietnamese population’s preference [23, 24]. The Vietnamese version of EQ-5D-5L was translated and adopted as well as validated elsewhere [24, 25]. Furthermore, we also asked the patients about HIV status and acute and chronic illness.

Illicit drug use and rehabilitation

We collected the following information on the history of drug abuse and current drug abuse.

Stigma/discrimination

We referred to the Substance Abuse Self-Stigma Scale by Luoma et al. and measures of HIV-related stigma [26]. In addition, we adapted the conceptual framework by Parker and Aggleton to construct the measure of drug addiction-related stigma among MMT patients [27]. We then piloted the measures in drug users and people living with HIV/AIDS. The final measure of stigma included five dimensions: (1) blame/judgment, (2) shame, (3) discrimination in various settings (workplace, health care services, family, and community), (4) disclosure of addiction or health status (including HIV-positive if seropositive), and (5) others’ fear of HIV transmission among those patients who self-reported being HIV-positive [28]. The respondents were asked if they had experienced any of the above types of stigma within the last month with the response options ranging from 0 to 10 points, indicating “never experience” and “always experience,” respectively. We divided the score into three levels: 0 indicates “never experience,” 1 to 9 suggests “experience,” and 10 indicates “always experience.” The following are examples of the items included:
  1. 1.

    Have you recently been blamed or criticized because of your health status and drug use behaviors?

     
  2. 2.

    Do you currently feel shame because of your health status and drug use behaviors?

     
  3. 3.

    Have you felt discriminated against or treated badly by others? In which circumstances (workplace/all health facilities/family/community/others)?

     
  4. 4.

    Have you ever disclosed your health status and drug use behaviors with others? With whom did you share?

     
  5. 5.

    (For HIV positives) Has anyone expressed fear of contracting HIV from casual contacts with you?

     

Statistical analysis

Data was analyzed by using STATA software version 12.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). The Mann-Whitney and chi-squared tests were employed to measure the difference in levels of discrimination/stigma between the two study sites. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. In this study, a stepwise backward selection strategy was applied along with multivariate Tobit regression to have reduced models. This strategy uses a threshold with the log-likelihood ratio test to have predictors with p values <0.2 included.

Results

Table 1 provides the demographic information of the respondents. In total, 241 patients participated in this study; 167 patients were receiving MMT in Tuyen Quang, and 74 patients were receiving MMT in Son Duong. The most common ethnic group was Kinh (92.2%). The mean age was 40.4 years (SD = 7.49). The majority lived with a spouse or partner (62.3%). The percentage of patients who were self-employed was 47.5% and only 6.4% was unemployed.
Table 1

Demographics of respondents

Characteristics

Number

Percent

Education

 <High school

111

47.0

 ≥High school

125

53.0

Marital status

 Single

54

22.9

 Lives with a spouse/partner

147

62.3

 Divorced/separated/widow

35

14.8

Employment

 Unemployed

15

6.4

 Self-employed

112

47.5

 Others

109

46.2

Religion

 No

220

93.6

 Others

15

6.4

Ethnicity

 Kinh

213

92.2

 Others

18

7.8

Location

 Tuyen Quang

167

69.3

 Son Duong

74

30.7

 

Mean

SD

Age

40.4

7.49

Table 2 illustrates the health status and risk behavior among the respondents. There were a large proportion of patients who were smokers (75.7%). A small percentage of patients reported health-related impairment: mobility (14%), self-care (10.6%), usual activities (14.4%), pain/discomfort (19.9%), and anxiety/depression (25.9%). The average age at first drug use was 24.4 years (SD = 7.64) and at first drug injection was 29.2 years (SD = 8.72). In addition, the majority was negative for HIV (73.6%) and 25% of the respondents was positive. The percentage of patients who were enrolled in ART was 22.8%. The number of drug rehabilitation was 1.8 (SD = 1.08), and the duration of MMT utilization was 15.3 months on average (SD = 8.66).
Table 2

Health status and risk behavior among respondents

Characteristics

Number

Percent

Concurrent drug use

31

13.4

Having a problem in mobility

33

14.0

Having a problem in self-care

25

10.6

Having a problem in usual activities

34

14.4

Having pain/discomfort

47

19.9

Having anxiety/depression

61

25.9

HIV test results

 Negative

170

73.6

 Positive

59

25.5

 N/A

2

0.9

Receiving ART

 Yes

53

22.8

 No

180

77.3

 

Mean

SD

Age at first drug use

24.4

7.64

Months of drug use

168.4

83.82

Age at first drug injection

29.2

8.72

Number of drug rehabilitation

1.8

1.08

Duration of MMT (months)

15.3

8.66

BMI

21.2

2.33

EQ-5D-5L index

0.9

0.20

EQ VAS

81.8

15.27

In Table 3, the proportion of stigma and discrimination among MMT patients is shown. We found that most of the enrolled patients experienced several types of discrimination and stigma including blame/judgment (95.1%), shame (95.1%), disclosure (71.4%), and the fear of HIV transmission by others (74.1%). These percentages were higher in Tuyen Quang than in Son Duong, except for the category others’ fear of HIV (p < 0.05).
Table 3

Discrimination/stigma among respondents

Characteristics

Tuyen Quang

Son Duong

Total

p value

n

%

n

%

n

%

Blame/judge

 No experience

2

1.2

10

13.5

12

5.0

<0.01

 Experience

165

98.8

60

81.1

225

93.4

 

 Always experience

0

0.0

4

5.4

4

1.7

 

Shame

 No experience

2

1.2

10

13.5

12

5.0

<0.01

 Experience

163

97.6

61

82.4

224

93.0

 

 Always experience

2

1.2

3

4.1

5

2.1

 

Discrimination

 No experience

7

4.2

7

9.5

14

5.8

0.22

 Experience

159

95.2

66

89.2

225

93.4

 

 Always experience

1

0.6

1

1.4

2

0.8

 

Disclosure

 No experience

43

25.8

26

35.1

69

28.6

<0.01

 Experience

123

73.7

37

50.0

160

66.4

 

 Always experience

1

0.6

11

14.9

12

5.0

 

Others’ fear of HIV

 No experience

6

50.0

0

0.0

6

26.1

0.01

 Experience

6

50.0

9

81.8

15

65.2

 

 Always experience

0

0.0

2

18.2

2

8.7

 
 

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

p value

Blame/judge

2.0

1.60

2.8

2.87

2.3

2.11

0.52

Shame

2.1

1.77

3.1

2.96

2.4

2.24

0.24

Discrimination

1.9

1.64

2.7

2.24

2.2

1.87

0.03

Disclosure

1.6

1.70

3.5

3.65

2.1

2.62

0.02

Others’ fear of HIV

2.2

2.48

2.9

3.56

2.5

3.00

0.38

Table 4 indicates the various factors associated with discrimination and stigma against drug users. Blame was positively associated with those who attended high school (Coef = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.03; 1.16). Those unemployed were more likely to be discriminated (Coef = −1.18, 95% CI = −1.87; −0.89). In addition, those who received ARV treatment were associated with a lower likelihood of being blamed and judged (Coef = −0.79, 95% CI = −1.4; −0.12), and they were more likely to disclose their health status and drug use behavior (Coef = 2.27, 95% CI = 0.6; 3.94). Lastly, those who suffered from anxiety/depression were more likely to be blamed/judged (Coef = 1.59, 95% CI = 0.24; 2.93) and shamed (Coef = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.36; 1.79).
Table 4

Factor associated with discrimination and stigma among respondents

Characteristics

Blame/judge

Shame

Discrimination

Disclosure

Coef

95% CI

Coef

95% CI

Coef

95% CI

Coef

95% CI

Education (vs <high school)

 High school

0.59**

0.03; 1.16

0.58*

−0.04; 1.20

  

−0.78**

−1.48; −0.08

 >High school

      

−1.46*

−3.01; 0.1

Employment (vs unemployment)

 Worker/farmer

    

−1.18***

−1.87; −0.49

  

HIV test results (vs negative)

 Positive

  

0.69*

−0.02; 1.40

  

1.36

−0.27; 2.99

Marital (vs single)

 Divorced/widow

    

−0.53

−1.21; 0.15

  

Income quintile (vs poorest)

 Middle

−0.73**

−1.41; −0.04

      

 Richest

−0.90**

−1.68; −0.11

  

−0.77**

−1.41; −0.13

  

Number of drug rehabilitation (vs none)

 1 time

−0.46

−1.07; 0.14

  

−0.47*

−0.99; 0.04

  

 >2 times

      

0.55

−0.19; 1.28

Receiving ART (yes vs no)

−0.79**

−1.45; −0.12

    

2.27***

0.6; 3.94

Location (Son Duong vs Tuyen Quang)

0.78**

0.14; 1.42

1.01***

0.31; 1.71

1.40***

0.81; 2.00

2.16***

1.38; 2.93

Having a problem in usual activities (yes vs no)

1.68**

0.29; 3.07

  

1.69***

0.53; 2.86

1.19**

0.02; 2.36

Pain/discomfort (yes vs no)

      

1.11

−0.23; 2.46

Anxiety/depression (yes vs no)

1.59**

0.24; 2.93

1.07***

0.36; 1.79

1.49**

0.36; 2.63

0.77

−0.43; 1.97

Concurrent drug use (yes vs no)

      

0.79

−0.17; 1.75

EQ-5D-5L index

3.47*

−0.36; 7.3

  

2.69*

−0.52; 5.90

  

Age

      

−0.05**

−0.1; −0.01

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1

Discussion

This research enriched the existing literature on MMT-related stigma and discrimination among those who live in rural and mountainous areas in Vietnam by identifying factors related to stigma and discrimination against MMT patients, which have not been well documented in previous studies. Although MMT has been known for reducing risk behaviors and increasing the quality of life among drug users [2932], our results indicated that stigma/discrimination significantly impacts MMT patients in northern Vietnam and feelings of stigma/discrimination were especially high among unemployed patients. In addition, those who were on antiretroviral treatment were more likely to disclose their health status and participants reporting anxiety and depression were also more likely to report feeling blamed/judged and shamed.

Stigma against drug users

Stigma and discrimination among drug users have been previously reported in various health care services [17, 19, 33]. In this study, the enrolled patients experienced different kinds of stigma including blame/judgment (95.1%), shame (95.1%), and others’ fear of HIV transmission (74.1%), which is consistent with a study by Jimeez et al. The study showed that 80% of patients reported some level of felt stigma [34]. However, our results are higher than those of a previous study in Hanoi, and Nam Dinh, which reported 17.2% (blame/judgment), 19.9% (shame), and 17.1% (others’ fear of HIV transmission) [17]. These inconsistent results can be explained by differences in the level of awareness about and attitudes towards HIV/AIDS among community members. A previous study by Alemu et al. showed that the severity of stigma and discrimination is influenced by the level of the community’s awareness about HIV/AIDS [35]. Those who live in cities are more likely to be well aware of HIV/AIDS than those who live in rural areas. All the participants in our study live in rural areas, which may help to explain the higher proportion of stigma/discrimination against drug users than that of a study in Vietnam’s capital, Hanoi, and Nam Dinh Province.

Discrimination has been shown to adversely affect the health of illicit drug users. Some previous studies suggested that discrimination and alienation are associated with poor mental and physical health [36, 37]. Our finding remarkably contributed to the literature as we found that those who suffered from mental health problems were more likely to report some forms of stigma and discrimination as well. Further research should be performed to understand the mutual relationship between stigma/discrimination and health among marginalized populations.

Factors related to stigma against drug users

Our study found that those who were unemployed were more likely to report self-stigmatization, which is consistent with the aforementioned study in Hanoi and Nam Dinh Province. The relationship between stigma/discrimination and employment is a complex process; stigma/discrimination can act as a barrier to work, and being unemployed may fuel stigma against drug users. A review of the literature by Sutton et al. identified that one of the main barriers to work among drug users was the problem of stigma [38]. In Vietnam, stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS are a pressing issue due to the propaganda associating HIV with the social evils of sex work and drug use [18, 3941]; these barriers may prevent them from obtaining employment [42]. Our study was carried out in rural areas, where stigma against drug users is far worse, which may result in the significantly inverse correlation between stigma and employment.

It was also noteworthy to find that those who were on antiretroviral treatment were more likely to report self-disclosure. Evidence suggested that stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV in the community and health care settings persistently hinder the utilization of HIV-related treatment services [18, 41]; this helps to explain why those who were on antiretroviral treatment tended to disclose their health status as they may feel less self-stigmatized. A study by Duong et al. suggested that self-disclosure may help those high-risk populations to increase access to HIV-related care [42].

Implications

Several implications can be drawn from this study. First, as stigma was higher in unemployed MMT patients, it is suggested that more attention should be paid to the lower socioeconomic methadone group. This can be done by moving MMT clinics to commune health centers so that patients can easily access drug treatment without long-hour traveling, thereby saving a great deal of time and boosting chances of employment. Besides, job opportunities should also be considered by relevant stakeholders. Second, as MMT patients in mountainous areas perceived an unexpectedly high level of stigma and discrimination, mass community-based behavioral change campaigns should be prioritized in order to raise knowledge and awareness about HIV/AIDS. In fact, many Vietnamese hesitate to make contact with HIV-positive people due to the misconception about how HIV is transmitted; a vast majority of people believe that HIV can be easily transmitted by mere touching [43]. Finally, our finding indicated that stigma and discrimination are in an intimate relationship with impaired physical and mental health; therefore, a comprehensive approach combining social, family, and health care supports should be considered to alleviate drug addiction-related stigma, thereby promoting the overall health status of methadone patients.

Limitations

Several limitations of this study should be taken into consideration. First, our data was cross-sectional; therefore, we could only observe stigma and discrimination prevalence among methadone patients at one point in time. The outcomes of interest, namely stigma and discrimination, were evaluated in the last 30 days, while the health-related quality of life was measured using EQ-5D-5L during presentation at the clinics. This may lead to a temporal relationship between the quality of life and stigma/discrimination. Therefore, a longitudinal study will provide a greater insight into how multiple factors can influence stigma and discrimination against MMT patients. Second, recall bias may occur due to self-reported information, which can lead to data bias. Finally, we chose the convenient sampling technique in our study. This may increase the risk of data bias, which clouds the study results. In addition, this sample included only those patients who had engaged in or accessed MMT services while lacked other drug users without treatment. Thus, these findings are not generalizable to injection drug users not engaged in methadone treatment or non-opioid-injecting participants. Ideally, accessing MMT services may reduce stigma and discrimination by counseling or motivational interviewing, as well as the familial supports for the patients as required by the program. As a result, this might lead to an underestimation of the outcomes of interest.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our study emphasized that MMT patients in mountainous areas in northern Vietnam experienced significantly high levels of stigma and discrimination. The findings suggested the need for raising awareness among populations about HIV/AIDS to reduce stigma. Moreover, the study also highlighted the importance of social supports, as well as job referrals, in terms of diminishing self-stigmatization and promoting quality of life among MMT patients.

Abbreviations

AIDS: 

Acquired immune deficiency syndrome

ART: 

Antiretroviral therapy

EQ-5D-5L: 

EuroQol-five dimensions-five levels

HBV: 

Hepatitis B virus

HCV: 

Hepatitis C virus

HIV: 

Human immunodeficiency virus

HRQOL: 

Health-related quality of life

IRB: 

Institutional review board

MMT: 

Methadone maintenance treatment

NEP: 

Needle exchange program

PWID: 

People who inject drugs

VAS: 

Visual analogue scale

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We specially thank for the administrative supports of Tuyen Quang Provincial AIDS Prevention Center to conduct this study.

Funding

The authors did not receive any funds for conducting this study.

Availability of data and materials

The authors may be contacted for data requests.

Authors’ contributions

HLTN, BXT, CAL, and HQL conceived, designed, and conducted the experiments. HVN, HLTN, HTM, BXT, CDH, HTL, CTN, TDT, CAL, HQL, and VTMT analyzed and interpreted the data. HVN, HLTN, HTM, BXT, CDH, CTN, TDT, HTL, CAL, HQL, and VTMT wrote the paper. All authors read and revised the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study’s protocol was approved by the Tuyen Quang AIDS Prevention center and the IRB of Hanoi School of Public Health. Data collection procedures were also approved by the directors of the two MMT clinics. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Authority of HIV/AIDS Control, Ministry of Health
(2)
Institute for Global Health Innovations, Duy Tan University
(3)
Tuyen Quang Provincial AIDS Prevention Center
(4)
Institute for Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Hanoi Medical University
(5)
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
(6)
Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Vietnam-Germany Hospital
(7)
Department of Immunology and Allergy, National Otolaryngology Hospital

References

  1. UNODC. 2015 World Drug Report finds drug use stable, access to drug & HIV treatment still low. Vienna; UNODC; 2015.Google Scholar
  2. Lam NT. Drugs, sex and AIDS: sexual relationships among injecting drug users and their sexual partners in Vietnam. Cult Health Sex. 2008;10(37):13691050701832315.Google Scholar
  3. Quan VM, et al. Risks for HIV, HBV, and HCV infections among male injection drug users in northern Vietnam: a case-control study. AIDS Care. 2009;21(1):7–16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Giang LM, et al. Substance use disorders and HIV in Vietnam since Doi Moi (Renovation): an overview. J Food Drug Anal. 2013;21(4):S42–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Vietnam Ministry of Health. Second country report on following up to the declaration of commitment on HIV/AIDS, adopted at the 26th UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS). Hanoi: Vietnam Ministry of Health; 2006.Google Scholar
  6. WHO. Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection: recommendations for a public health approach. Geneva: WHO; 2013.Google Scholar
  7. Ward J, Mattick RP, Hall W. The effectiveness of methadone maintenance treatment: an overview. Drug Alcohol Rev. 1994;13(3):327–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Tran Vu Hoang TTTH, Tran Minh H, Nguyen To N, Nguyen Cuong Q, Minh Tam N t, Stephen M. Impact of a methadone maintenance therapy pilot in Vietnam and its role in a scaled-up response. Harm Reduct J. 2015;12:39.Google Scholar
  9. Pang L, et al. Effectiveness of first eight methadone maintenance treatment clinics in China. Aids. 2007;21(8):64.Google Scholar
  10. Wong KH, et al. Adherence to methadone is associated with a lower level of HIV-related risk behaviors in drug users. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2003;24(3):233–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Vlahov D, Robertson AM, Strathdee SA. Prevention of HIV infection among injection drug users in resource-limited settings. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;15(50):651482.Google Scholar
  12. Simmonds L, Coomber R. Injecting drug users: a stigmatised and stigmatising population. Int J Drug Policy. 2009;20(2):121–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Reid G, Higgs P. Vietnam moves forward with harm reduction: an assessment of progress. Glob Public Health. 2011;6(2):168–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kitara DL, Aloyo J. HIV/AIDS stigmatization, the reason for poor access to HIV counseling and testing (HCT) among the youths in Gulu (Uganda). Afr J Infect Dis. 2012;6(1):12–20.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Musumari PM, et al. “If I have nothing to eat, I get angry and push the pills bottle away from me”: a qualitative study of patient determinants of adherence to antiretroviral therapy in the Democratic Republic of Congo. AIDS Care. 2013;25(10):1271–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Merrill JE, Monti PM. Influencers of the stigma complex toward substance use and substance use disorders. USA: Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University; 2015.Google Scholar
  17. Tran BX, et al. Drug addiction stigma in relation to methadone maintenance treatment by different service delivery models in Vietnam. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(238):016–2897.Google Scholar
  18. Thi MDA, Brickley DB, Vinh DTN, et al. A qualitative study of stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. AIDS Behav. 2008;12(4 Suppl):S63–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lim T, et al. Individual-level socioeconomic status and community-level inequality as determinants of stigma towards persons living with HIV who inject drugs in Thai Nguyen. Vietnam J Int AIDS Soc. 2013;16(3 Suppl 2):18637.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. VNP+. People living with HIV Stigma Index in 2014 in Viet Nam. Ha Noi; 2014Google Scholar
  21. Lu C, et al. Limitations of methods for measuring out-of-pocket and catastrophic private health expenditures. Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87(3):238–44. 244a–244d.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Tran BX, Phan HT, Nguyen LH, Nguyen CT, Nguyen AT, Le TN, Latkin CA. Economic vulnerability of methadone maintenance patients: implications for policies on co-payment services. Int J Drug Policy. 2016;31:131–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. EuroQol Group. EQ-5D-5L user guide: basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-5L instrument. 2011. URL: http://www.euroqol.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Documenten/PDF/Folders_Flyers/EQ-5D-5L_UserGuide_2015.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  24. Tran BX, Ohinmaa A, Nguyen LT. Quality of life profile and psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L in HIV/AIDS patients. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2012;10:132.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Tran BX, et al. Determinants of health-related quality of life in adults living with HIV in Vietnam. AIDS Care. 2011;23(10):1236–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Luoma JB, et al. Self-stigma in substance abuse: development of a new measure. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2013;35(2):223–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Parker R, Aggleton P. HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: a conceptual framework and implications for action. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(1):13–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. International Center for Research on Women. Can we measure HIV/AIDS-related stigma and discrimination? Current knowledge about quantifying stigma in developing countries. Washington D.C: USAID; 2006.Google Scholar
  29. Son TN, Huong TN, Linh NN. Result of methadone replacement treatment for heroin addictions in Tan An city, Long An province, 2015. J Prev Med. 2015;25(10):322–6.Google Scholar
  30. Trung QH, Ngoc XN, Doan TL, Tuan QD. Results of opiate addiction treatment program with methadone in Phu Tho, 2015. J Prev Med. 2015;25(10):304–10.Google Scholar
  31. Lashkaripour K, Bakhshani NM, Sadjadi SA. Quality of life in patients on methadone maintenance treatment: a three-month assessment. J Pak Med Assoc. 2012;62(10):1003–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Li XL, Tan HZ, Sun ZQ. Quality of life for drug abusers accepting methadone maintenance treatment. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2008;33(7):601–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sun HM, et al. Methadone maintenance treatment programme reduces criminal activity and improves social well-being of drug users in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2015;5(1):2014–005997.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Jimeez J, et al. Levels of felt stigma among a group of people with HIV in Puerto Rico. P R Health Sci J. 2012;31(2):64–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Alemu T, et al. Experience of stigma and discrimination and the implications for healthcare seeking behavior among people living with HIV/AIDS in resource-limited setting. Sahara J. 2013;10(1):1–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Young M, et al. Interpersonal discrimination and the health of illicit drug users. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2005;31(3):371–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ahern J, Stuber J, Galea S. Stigma, discrimination and the health of illicit drug users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;88(2-3):188–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Liz Sutton, Andreas Cebulla, Claire Heaver, Noel Smith. Drug and alcohol use as barriers to employment: a review of the literature. United Kingdom: Loughborough University, for Department of Work and Pensions; 2004.Google Scholar
  39. Nguyen TA, et al. Self-help groups can improve utilization of postnatal care by HIV-infected mothers. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2009;20(2):141–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hong KT, Anh NTV, Ogden J. Understanding HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination in Vietnam. Washington D.C: International Center for Research on Women; 2004.Google Scholar
  41. Maher L, Coupland H, Musson R. Scaling up HIV treatment, care and support for injecting drug users in Vietnam. Int J Drug Policy. 2007;18(4):296–305.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Thanh DC, Moland KM, Fylkesnes K. Persisting stigma reduces the utilisation of HIV-related care and support services in Viet Nam. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:428.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Leslie Berkman. AIDS puts Vietnamese community, too, at risk: health: study says disease seems to be spreading among male homosexuals, indicating culture isn’t enough to protect the population. Los Angeles: Los Angeles Times; 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement