La intervención comunitaria con personas afectadas por lepra en contextos endémicos
- Autores: Gema Martos Casado
- Directores de la Tesis: Diana Gil González (dir. tes.), Carmen Vives Cases (dir. tes.)
- Lectura: En la Universitat d'Alacant / Universidad de Alicante ( España ) en 2022
- Idioma: español
- Número de páginas: 103
- Tribunal Calificador de la Tesis: Daniel La Parra Casado (presid.), Lucy Anne Parker (secret.), Albert Espelt Hernández (voc.)
- Programa de doctorado: Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias de la Salud por la Universidad de Alicante
- Materias:
- Enlaces
- Tesis en acceso abierto en: RUA
- Resumen
ntroducción:
La participación comunitaria se considera una prioridad en las estrategias relacionadas con la lucha de las enfermedades tropicales desatendidas como la lepra. En ellas se resalta la importancia de involucrar a todas las personas y sus comunidades, incluidas las mujeres, en la toma de decisiones que tienen que ver con su salud y bienestar. Además, la participación de otras partes implicadas como el personal sanitario, tiene un efecto positivo sobre la participación comunitaria y contribuye a su efectividad e impacto sobre la salud.
El interés global de esta tesis se fundamenta en la necesidad de generar evidencia relacionada con el impacto de los programas de intervención comunitaria en la lucha contra la lepra. Además, se ha considerado relevante hacerlo desde una triple perspectiva: la evidencia científica, el enfoque de género y la mirada de los y las profesionales de la salud.
Desarrollo teórico:
Se planteó como objetivo principal de esta tesis doctoral analizar los programas de intervención comunitaria como estrategia para mejorar la salud y bienestar de las personas afectadas de lepra. Y como objetivos específicos:
1. Describir experiencias de programas con personas afectadas por lepra en los países endémicos generando información útil sobre el impacto de las intervenciones comunitarias.
2. Analizar la inclusión de la perspectiva de género en estudios sobre programas de participación comunitaria llevados a cabo con personas afectadas por la lepra en países afectados.
3. Explorar las percepciones de los y las profesionales de la salud de organizaciones locales sobre el desarrollo de programas con personas afectadas por la lepra en India y Brasil.
Para la consecución de estos objetivos se llevaron a cabo tres estudios. En primer lugar, se realizó una scoping review donde se analizaron artículos de diversas bases de datos que hacían referencia a programas de intervención comunitaria dirigidos a personas afectadas por la lepra en países de prioridad global y que presentaron una evaluación de resultados. En segundo lugar, se realizó una revisión crítica de la literatura con enfoque de género partiendo de los artículos identificados en la scoping review previa. Por último, se realizó un estudio cualitativo basado en la respuesta escrita a un cuestionario de preguntas abiertas que se envió por correo electrónico a 27 profesionales, 14 mujeres y 13 hombres, de 10 y 6 organizaciones locales de India y Brasil, respectivamente.
En la scoping review, se analizaron treinta artículos que cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. En su mayoría estaban relacionados con la salud y se dirigían a la población adulta. Todos evaluaron los indicadores utilizados positivamente. Ninguno incluyó indicadores que evaluaran directamente la participación comunitaria. El grado de participación analizado oscilaba entre la movilización y la colaboración. Tras revisar de nuevo los treinta estudios para la revisión crítica con enfoque de género, se obtuvo que en la mayoría de las secciones analizadas no se tuvo en cuenta la perspectiva de género. Aunque había una tendencia a desagregar los datos por sexo, los subgrupos de hombres y mujeres no fueron analizadas, ni hubo discusión de las diferencias entre los dos. En todos los artículos había evidencia de la presencia de sesgos de género y en la mayoría de ellos se usaron correctamente los términos sexo y género.
Tras el análisis cualitativo de las 27 entrevistas realizadas a profesionales de la salud, los resultados mostraron algunas barreras que dificultan su trabajo diario como el estigma social, las desigualdades, las desigualdades de género, la difícil gestión de la enfermedad, los servicios limitados, la falta de recursos y la falta de participación de la comunidad. Además, identificaron algunas recomendaciones necesarias para mejorar el desarrollo y la sostenibilidad de estos programas.
Conclusiones:
Hay una relación positiva entre las intervenciones comunitarias con personas afectadas de lepra y los indicadores de salud, aunque los diseños empleados no permiten la atribución directa a la participación comunitaria. Concretamente en India y Brasil, se evidencian progresos en torno al desarrollo de los programas de intervención comunitaria, a pesar de que los y las profesionales siguen percibiendo barreras que lo obstaculizan. En relación con la perspectiva de género, hay una inconsistencia entre la evidencia analizada y los resultados obtenidos. Serían necesarias investigaciones más rigurosas que incluyan indicadores adecuados y a las personas afectadas por lepra para evaluar la efectividad de la participación comunitaria. Identificar las barreras que dificultan la sostenibilidad y efectividad de estos programas permite definir estrategias específicas para paliarlas. Éstas deben ir encaminadas hacia la participación de todas las partes, con enfoques de género y basados en los derechos humanos, con el fin de garantizar la cobertura universal y la sostenibilidad de los programas con personas afectadas por lepra.
Palabras clave: lepra, participación comunitaria, programas de salud, género, sostenibilidad, interseccionalidad, derechos humanos.
Bibliografía:
1. Santacroce L, Prete R del, Charitos IA, Bottalico L. Mycobacterium leprae: A historical study on the origins of leprosy and its social stigma. Infezioni in Medicina. 2021;29(4):623–32.
2. Fontilles. Manual de Leprología . Fontilles, editor. 2013.
3. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Enfermedades Tropicales Desatendidas [Internet]. [cited 2022 Apr 25]. Available from: www.who.int/es/news-rooms/questions-and-answers/item/neglected-tropical-diseases 4. Daumerie D, Savioli L, Crompton DW. Working to overcome the global impact of neglected tropical diseases : first WHO report on neglected tropical diseases. World Health Organization; 2010.
5. World Health Organization. Ending the neglect to attain the sustainable development goals: a road map for neglected tropical diseases 2021-2030: overview [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 Feb 22]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332094/WHO-UCN-NTD-2020.01-eng.pdf?ua=1 6. World Health Organization. Global leprosy (Hansen disease) update, 2019: time to step-up prevention initiatives. Weekly Epidemiological Report . 2020;95(36):417–40.
7. World Health Organization. Global leprosy (Hansen disease) update, 2020: impact of covid on global leprosy control. Weekly Epidemiological Report . 2021;96(36):421–44.
8. Brandsma J, van Brakel W. Who disability grading: operational definitions. Lepr Rev. 2003;74:366–73.
9. World Health Organization. Towards zero leprosy. Global leprosy (Hansen´s Disease) strategy 2021-2030. [Internet]. 2021. Available from: http://apps.who.int/bookorders.
10. World Health Organization. A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health: debates, policy & practice, case studies. [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2022 May 21]. Available from: https.//apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44489 11. Pescarini JM, Strina A, Nery JS, Skalinski LM, Andrade KVF de, Penna MLF, et al. Socioeconomic risk markers of leprosy in high-burden countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Jul 9;12(7).
12. Souza CDF de, Luna CF, Magalhães M de AFM. Spatial modelling of leprosy in the state of Bahia and its social determinants: a study of health inequities. An Bras Dermatol. 2019 Mar 1;94(2):182–91.
13. Nery JS, Ramond A, Pescarini JM, Alves A, Strina A, Ichihara MY, et al. Socioeconomic determinants of leprosy new case detection in the 100 Million Brazilian Cohort: a population-based linkage study. Lancet Glob Health. 2019 Sep 1;7(9):e1226–36.
14. Houweling TAJ, Karim-Kos HE, Kulik MC, Stolk WA, Haagsma JA, Lenk EJ, et al. Socioeconomic Inequalities in Neglected Tropical Diseases: A Systematic Review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(5).
15. Cabral-Miranda W, Chiaravalloti Neto F, Barrozo L v. Socio-economic and environmental effects influencing the development of leprosy in Bahia, north-eastern Brazil. Tropical Medicine and International Health. 2014 Dec 1;19(12):1504–14.
16. Heidinger M, Simonnet E, Karippadathu F, Puchinger M, Pfeifer J, Grisold A. Analysis of social determinants of health and disability scores in leprosy-affected persons in Salem, Tamil Nadu, India. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Dec 1;15(12).
17. Kerr-Pontes LRS, Montenegro ACD, Barreto ML, Werneck GL, Feldmeier H. Inequality and leprosy in Northeast Brazil: An ecological study. Int J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr;33(2):262–9.
18. Bakker MI, Hatta M, Kwenang A, van Mosseveld P, Faber WR, Klatser PR, et al. Risk factors for developing leprosy - A population-based cohort study in Indonesia. Lepr Rev. 2006 Mar;77(1):48–61.
19. la Parra Casado D, Gil González D, Vives Cases C. Sociedad y salud. Editorial Síntesis; 2021. 1–252 p.
20. de Andrade KVF, Nery JS, Pescarini JM, Ramond A, de Souza Teles Santos CA, Ichihara MY, et al. Geographic and socioeconomic factors associated with leprosy treatment default: An analysis from the 100 Million Brazilian Cohort. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019;13(9).
21. Monteiro LD, Mota RMS, Martins-Melo FR, Alencar CH, Heukelbach J. Social determinants of leprosy in a hyperendemic state in north Brazil. Rev Saude Publica. 2017;51:70.
22. Hankivsky O, Christoffersen A. Intersectionality and the determinants of health: A Canadian perspective. Crit Public Health. 2008;18(3):271–83.
23. Kapilashrami A. Intersectionality and why it matters to global health. The Lancet [Internet]. 2018 Jun 30;391. Available from: www.thelancet.com 24. Adauy MH, Angulo LP, Sepúlveda AMJ, Sanhueza XA, Becerra ID, Morales JV. Barreras y facilitadores de acceso a la atención de salud: Una revisión sistemática cualitativa. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2013 Mar;33(3):223–9.
25. Engels D, Zhou XN. Neglected tropical diseases: An effective global response to local poverty-related disease priorities. Infect Dis Poverty. 2020 Jan 28;9(1).
26. ILEP Federation. Achieving a world free from leprosy. ILEP Strategy 2016-2020 [Internet]. [cited 2021 Feb 23]. Available from: https://ilepfederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ILEP-Strategy-2016-20.pdf 27. United to Combat Neglected Tropical Diseases. London Declaration on Neglected Tropical Diseases. 2012 [cited 2022 Mar 24]; Available from: http://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/London_Declaration_NTDs.pdf 28. The BEST Framework: A comprehensive approach towards Neglected Tropical Diseases [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jul 27]. Available from: https://ntd-ngonetwork.org/the-best-framework 29. World Healh Organization. Draft road map for neglected tropical diseases 2021-2030. [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://edoc.unibas.ch/54396/1/journal.pntd.0005289.pdf, 30. United Nations. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [Internet]. 2015 Oct [cited 2022 Apr 20]. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda 31. Bangert M, Molyneux DH, Lindsay SW, Fitzpatrick C, Engels D. The cross-cutting contribution of the end of neglected tropical diseases to the sustainable development goals. Infect Dis Poverty. 2017 Apr 4;6(1).
32. World Health Organization. The final push toward elimination of leprosy. Strategic Plan 2000-2005 [Internet]. 2000 [cited 2022 May 21]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/66335 33. World Health Organization. Global Strategy for Further Reducing the Leprosy Burden and Sustaining Leprosy Control Activities. Plan period: 2006-2010 [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2022 Jun 2]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/69052 34. World Health Organization. Regional Office for South-East Asia. Enhanced global strategy for further reducing the disease burden due to leprosy. Plan period: 2011-2015 [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2022 Jun 2]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/205004 35. Regional Office for South-East Asia, World Health Organization. Global Leprosy Strategy 2016-2020: Accelerating towards a leprosy-free world [Internet]. 2016. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/208824 36. World Health Organization. Alma Ata Declaration. Geneva; 1978.
37. Ogunsumi DO, Lal V, Puchner KP, van Brakel W, Schwienhorst-Stich EM, Kasang C, et al. Measuring endemicity and burden of leprosy across countries and regions: A systematic review and delphi survey. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Sep 1;15(9).
38. The International Federation of Anti-Leprosy Association (ILEP). The interpretation of epidemiological indicators in leprosy [Internet]. 2001 [cited 2022 Jul 13]. Available from: http://www.leprosy-information.org/resource/ilep-technical-guide-interpretation-epidemiological-indicators-leprosy 39. Shey Nsagha D, Afolabi Bamgboye E, Clement Nguedia Assob J, Longdoh Njunda A, Lucien Foumou Kamga H, Zoung-Kanyi Bissek AC, et al. Elimination of Leprosy as a public health problem by 2000 AD: an epidemiological perspective. Pan Afr Med J. 2011;9(4).
40. Rinaldi A. The global campaign to eliminate leprosy. PLoS Med. 2005 Dec;2(12):1222–5.
41. Rao PS. Worldwide elimination of leprosy: historical journey from the past to future. Expert Rev Dermatol. 2012 Dec;7(6).
42. Smith WC, van Brakel W, Gillis T, Saunderson P, Richardus JH. The Missing Millions: A Threat to the Elimination of Leprosy. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Apr 23;9(4).
43. Braber KL. An evaluation of GAEL, the Global Alliance for the Elimination of Leprosy. Vol. 75, Lepr Rev. 2004.
44. Lechat MF. El papel de las Organizaciones no Gubernamentales en la lucha contra la lepra. Revista de Leprología- Fontilles. 1987;16(2):151–2.
45. World Health Organization. Estrategia mundial de recursos humanos para la salud [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Apr 18]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/254600 46. World Health Organization. WHO guideline on health policy and system support to optimize community health worker programmes [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2022 Sep 21]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550369 47. Department of Human Reosurces for Health WHO. Community health workers: What do we know about them? [Internet]. Geneva; 2007. Available from: https://www.who.int/hrh/documents/community_health_workers_brief.pdf 48. Rifkin SB. Lessons from community participation in health programmes: a review of the post Alma-Ata experience. Int Health. 2009 Sep;1(1):31–6.
49. Pan American Health Organization / World Health Organization. Recursos Humanos para la Salud. Estrategia mundial de recursos humanos para la salud: personal sanitario 2030 [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://www.paho.org/hq/dmdocuments/2017/recursos-humanos-brochure-triptipco.pdf 50. Ahmed S, Chase LE, Wagnild J, Akhter N, Sturridge S, Clarke A, et al. Community health workers and health equity in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review and recommendations for policy and practice. Int J Equity Health. 2022 Dec 1;21(1).
51. Glenton C, Javadi D, Perry HB. Community health workers at the dawn of a new era: 5. Roles and tasks. Vol. 19, Health Research Policy and Systems. BioMed Central Ltd; 2021.
52. de Las Aguas JT. Centenario del sanatorio de Fontilles. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2009;100:362–73.
53. Fontilles. Memoria 2021. Más de 100 años trabajando por las personas más vulnerables [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Jul 19]. Available from: http://fontilles.org/memoria-anual-2021/ 54. Montañes- Ramos N. El enfoque de género en la ONGD Fontilles. Aprendizajes para la mejora de intervenciones en el estado de Karnataka, India. [Tesina Fin de Master Universitario en Cooperación al Desarrollo]. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia ; 2016.
55. Sanatorio San Francisco de Borja. Salud y cooperación al desarrollo: análisis constructivo y nuevas claves de futuro". Fontilles. Salud y Desarrollo, editor. Fontilles, Alicante; 2015.
56. Sermrittirong S, van Brakel WH. Stigma in leprosy: concepts, causes and determinants. Lepr Rev. 2014;85:36–47.
57. International Federation of Anti-Leprosy Associations. Triple Jeopardy: Tackling the discrimantion facing girls and women with leprosy. [Internet]. 2015. Available from: www.disabled-world.com/disability/ 58. Velema JP, Ebenso B, Fuzikawa PL. Evidence for the effectiveness of rehabilitation-in-the-community programmes. Lepr Rev [Internet]. 2008;79:65–82. Available from: www.bireme.br 59. Finkenflügel H, Wolffers I, Huijsman R. The evidence base for community-based rehabilitation: A literature review. Vol. 28, International Journal of Rehabilitation Research. 2005. p. 187–201.
60. World Health Organizacion/The International Federation of Anti-Leprosy Assocaition. Technical guide on community-based rehabilitation and leprosy : meeting the rehabilitation needs of people affected by leprosy and promoting quality of life. 2007.
61. World Health Organization. Meeting Report on the development of guidelines for Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) programmes. 2004.
62. Khasnabis C, Heinicke Motsch K, Achu K. Community Based Rehabilitation: CBR Guidelines. World Health Organization, editor. 2010.
63. Ma José Aguilar Idáñez. La participación comunitaria en salud: ¿mito o realidad? Madrid: Ediciones Díaz de Santos; 2001.
64. Attree P, French B, Milton B, Povall S, Whitehead M, Popay J. The experience of community engagement for individuals: A rapid review of evidence. Vol. 19, Health and Social Care in the Community. 2011. p. 250–60.
65. Milton B, Attree P, French B, Povall S, Whitehead M, Popay J. The impact of community engagement on health and social outcomes: A systematic review. Vol. 47, Community Development Journal. 2012. p. 316–34.
66. Rifkin SB. Examining the links between community participation and health outcomes: A review of the literature. Vol. 29, Health Policy and Planning. Oxford University Press; 2014. p. ii98–106.
67. March S, Torres E, Ramos M, Ripoll J, García A, Bulilete O, et al. Adult community health-promoting interventions in primary health care: A systematic review. Vol. 76, Preventive Medicine. Academic Press Inc.; 2015. p. S94–104.
68. George AS, Mehra V, Scott K, Sriram V. Community participation in health systems research: A systematic review assessing the state of research, the nature of interventions involved and the features of engagement with communities. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 23;10(10).
69. Atkinson JA, Vallely A, Fitzgerald L, Whittaker M, Tanner M. The architecture and effect of participation: A systematic review of community participation for communicable disease control and elimination. Implications for malaria elimination. Malar J. 2011;10.
70. Das JK, Salam RA, Arshad A, Maredia H, Bhutta ZA. Community based interventions for the prevention and control of Non-Helmintic NTD. Infect Dis Poverty. 2014 Jul 31;3(1).
71. Laverack G, Labonte R. A planning framework for community empowerment. Health Policy Plan. 2000;15(3):255–62.
72. Draper AK, Hewitt G, Rifkin S. Chasing the dragon: Developing indicators for the assessment of community participation in health programmes. Soc Sci Med. 2010 Sep 1;71(6):1102–9.
73. Rifkin SB, Muller F, Bichmann W. Primary Health Care: on measuring participation. Soc Sci Med. 1988;26(9):931–40.
74. Hacia cero lepra Estrategia mundial contra la lepra (enfermedad de Hansen) [Internet]. 2021. Available from: http://apps.who.int/bookorders.
75. Rifkin SB, Kangere M. What is Participation? In: Community Based Rehabilitation as a Participatory Strategy in Africa . 2002. p. 37–49.
76. Draper AK, Hewitt G, Rifkin S. Chasing the dragon: Developing indicators for the assessment of community participation in health programmes. Soc Sci Med. 2010 Sep 1;71(6):1102–9.
77. United Nations. General Assembly. Elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members [Internet]. 2021 Jul [cited 2022 Jun 16]. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/en/about-us7where-we-work/headquarters/new-york/reports-to-ga-session-76 78. United Nations. Human Rights Council. Stigmatization as dehumanization: wrongful stereotyping and structural violence against women and children affected by leprosy [Internet]. 2019. Available from: www.ilepfederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Updated-discriminatory-laws-table-Final- 79. Human Rights Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members [Internet]. 2018. Available from: www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/leprosy.
80. Updated list of discriminatory laws | ILEP Federation [Internet]. [cited 2021 Apr 21]. Available from: https://ilepfederation.org/updated-list-of-discriminatory-laws/ 81. Alice Cruz. Embodying law and embedding public health with the voice of those affected: Ending NTDs by 2030. Health and Human Rights Journal. 2008;20(1).
82. Asamblea General. Eliminación de la discriminación contra las personas afectadas de lepra. Resolución 65/215. 2010 Dec.
83. Asamblea General. Principios y directrices para la eliminación de la discriminación contra las personas afectadas por la lepra y sus familiares. 2010 Aug.
84. Asamblea General. Eliminación de la discriminación contra las personas afectadas por la lepra y sus familiares. Resolución 35/9. 2017 Jul.
85. Gonçalves M, Prado MAR do, Silva SS da, Santos K da S, Araujo PN de, Fortuna CM. Work and Leprosy: women in their pains, struggles and toils. Rev Bras Enferm. 2018;71:660–7.
86. Brandão PS, Duarte NIG, Soares PG, Mesquita F, Costa SC. Right to health and Hansen’s disease: the voice of girls and women affected by Hansen’s disease. Lepr Rev [Internet]. 2022 Jun 1;93(2):161–5. Available from: https://leprosyreview.org/article/93/2/20-22008 87. le Grand A. Women and leprosy: a review. Lepr Rev. 1997;68(3):203–11.
88. Sarkar R, Pradhan S. Leprosy and women. Vol. 2, International Journal of Women’s Dermatology. Elsevier Inc.; 2016. p. 117–21.
89. Palmeira IP, De M, Ferreira A. “The body I was and the body I am”: conceptions of women with alterations caused by leprosy. Texto Contexto- Enfermagem. 2012;21(2):379–86.
90. Gonçalves M, da Silva Santos K, da Silva SS, Marcussi TCC, Carvalho KV, Fortuna CM. Women and leprosy: Interferences and experiences. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2021;29.
91. Dijkstra JIR, van Brakel WH, van Elteren M. Gender and leprosy-related stigma in endemic areas: A systematic review. Lepr Rev. 2017;88(3):419–40.
92. Varkevisser C, Lever P, Alubo O, Burathoki K, Idawani C, Moreira T, et al. Gender and leprosy: case studies in Indonesia, Nigeria, Nepal and Brazil. Lepr Rev. 2009 Mar;80(1):65–76.
93. Martoreli Júnior JF, Ramos ACV, Alves JD, Crispim J de A, Alves LS, Berra TZ, et al. Inequality of gender, age and disabilities due to leprosy and trends in a hyperendemic metropolis: Evidence from an eleven-year time series study in central-west Brazil. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Nov 1;15(11).
94. United Nation Women. Gender mainstreaming: a global strategy for achieving gender equality and the empowermente of women and girls. 2020.
95. United to Combat Neglected Tropical Diseases. Neglected Tropical Diseases: Women and girls in focus [Internet]. 2017. Available from: www.ntdsupport.org/cor- 96. Morgan R, George A, Ssali S, Hawkins K, Molyneux S, Theobald S. How to do (or not to do)... gender analysis in health systems research. Health Policy Plan. 2016 Oct 1;31(8):1069–78.
97. Baptiste D, Kapungu C, Khare MH, Lewis Y, Barlow-Mosha L. Integrating Women’s Human Rights into Global Health Research: An Action Framework.
98. Ruiz-Cantero MT, Vives-Cases C, Artazcoz L, Delgado A, Calvente MDMG, Miqueo C, et al. A framework to analyse gender bias in epidemiological research. J Epidemiol Community Health (1978). 2007;61(SUPPL. 2).
99. Ghasemi E, Majdzadeh R, Rajabi F, Vedadhir AA, Negarandeh R, Jamshidi E, et al. Applying Intersectionality in designing and implementing health interventions: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2021 Dec 1;21(1).
100. Rai SS, Peters RMH, Syurina E v., Irwanto I, Naniche D, Zweekhorst MBM. Intersectionality and health-related stigma: insights from experiences of people living with stigmatized health conditions in Indonesia. Int J Equity Health. 2020 Dec 1;19(1).
101. Hankivsky O, Grace D, Hunting G, Giesbrecht M, Fridkin A, Rudrum S, et al. An intersectionality-based policy analysis framework: Critical reflections on a methodology for advancing equity. Int J Equity Health. 2014;13(1).
102. Couto MT, de Oliveira E, Separavich MAA, Luiz O do C. The feminist perspective of intersectionality in the field of public health: A narrative review of the theoreticalmethodological literature. Salud Colect. 2019;15(1).
103. Larson E, George A, Morgan R, Poteat T. 10 Best resources on... intersectionality with an emphasis on low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy Plan. 2016 Oct 1;31(8):964–9.
104. Sen A. ¿ Por qué la equidad en salud? Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública . 2002;11(5–6):302–9.
105. Hanson HM, Salmoni AW, Volpe R. Defining Program Sustainability: Differing Views of Stakeholders. Can J Public Health. 2009;100(3):304–13.
106. Moore JE, Mascarenhas A, Bain J, Straus SE. Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability. Implementation Science. 2017 Sep 2;12(1).
107. Scheirer MA. Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on empirical studies of program sustainability. American Journal of Evaluation. 2005 Sep;26(3):320–47.
108. Shediac-Rizkallah MC, Bone LR. Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and policy. Health Education Research Theory & Practice [Internet]. 1998;13:87–108. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/her/article/13/1/87/607311 109. Glenn J, Adams AB, Sankar G, Henry C, Palacio K, Thuo W, et al. Towards a shared understanding of sustainability for neglected tropical disease programs. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Aug 1;15(8).
110. Silberberg M, Martinez-Bianchi V. Community and stakeholder engagement. Prim Care. 2019 Dec;46(4):587–94.
111. Rao D, Elshafei A, Nguyen M, Hatzenbuehler ML, Frey S, Go VF. A systematic review of multi-level stigma interventions: State of the science and future directions. Vol. 17, BMC Medicine. BioMed Central Ltd.; 2019.
112. Arksey H, O´Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. The International Journal of Social Research Methodology [Internet]. 2005;8:19–32. Available from: http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/OpenURLlinktothearticle:http://www.journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/openurl.asp?genre=article&eissn=1464-5300&volume=8&issue=1&spage=19 113. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science [Internet]. 2010;5(69). Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.ca 114. World Health Organization. Guidelines for strengthening participation of persons affected by leprosy in leprosy services. 2011.
115. World Health Organization. Health Promotion Glossary. 1998.
116. World Health Organization. Global leprosy update, 2017: reducing the disease burden due to leprosy. Weekely Epidemiological Record . 2018;(35):445–56.
117. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery. 2010;8(5):336–41.
118. García Calvente M del Mar, Jiménez Rodrigo MLuisa, Martínez Morante Emilia. Guía para incorporar la perspectiva de género a la investigación en salud. Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública; 2010.
119. Ariño MD, Tomás C, Eguiluz M, Samitier ML, Oliveros T, Yago T, et al. ¿Se puede evaluar la perspectiva de género en los proyectos de investigación? Gac Sanit. 2011 Mar;25(2):146–50.
120. Gaceta Sanitaria. Normas para autores y autoras de Gaceta Sanitaria . [cited 2022 Jun 16]; Available from: http//:elselvier.es/ficheros/NormOrga/138normas.pdf 121. Martos-Casado G, Vives-Cases C, Gil-González D. Scoping review: Community-based programmes with people affected by leprosy. Tropical Medicine and International Health. 2020;25(2):144–58.
122. Martos-Casado G, Gil-Gonzáleza D, Vives-Casesa C. Gender perspective in leprosy programs: A critical literature review. Lepr Rev. 2020;91(4):300–13.
123. World Health Organization, International Federation of Anti-Leprosy Associations. Technical guide on community-based rehabilitation and leprosy : meeting the rehabilitation needs of people affected by leprosy and promoting quality of life. World Health Organization ; 2007.
124. Adauy H, Angulo P, Sepúlveda J, Sanhueza A, Becerra D, Morales V, et al. Barreras y facilitadores de acceso a la atención de salud: una revisión sistemática cualitativa. Vol. 33, Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2013.
125. Rivera Chavarría A, Sánchez Hernández G, Espinoza Aguirre A. Barreras y facilitadores relacionados con el diagnóstico de la lepra en Costa Rica. Acta Med Costarric. 2020;62(2):65–71.
126. Heijnders ML. An exploration of the views of people with leprosy in Nepal concerning the quality of leprosy services and their impact on adherence behaviour. Lepr Rev. 2004;75(4):338–47.
127. Peters RMH, Dadun, Lusli M, Miranda-Galarza B, van Brakel WH, Zweekhorst MBM, et al. The meaning of leprosy and everyday experiences: An exploration in Cirebon, Indonesia. J Trop Med. 2013;2013.
128. Ukwaja KN, Alphonsus C, Eze CC, Lehman L, Ekeke N, Nwafor CC, et al. Investigating barriers and challenges to the integrated management of neglected tropical skin diseases in an endemic setting in Nigeria. PLoS Negl Trop Dis [Internet]. 2020;14(4):1–21. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008248 129. Ndakidemi E, Emerson C, Medley A, Ngowi B, Ng’eno B, Munuo G, et al. Health care worker perspectives on TB case finding and HIV services among pediatric TB patients in Tanzania. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis [Internet]. 2019 Jul 1 [cited 2021 Apr 21];23(7):811–6. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC7876657/ 130. Van’T Noordende AT, Lisam S, Ruthindartri P, Sadiq A, Singh V, Arifin M, et al. Leprosy perceptions and knowledge in endemic districts in india and indonesia: Differences and commonalities. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021;15(1):1–19.
131. Yuan K, Huang XL, Yan W, Zhang YX, Gong YM, Su SZ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of stigma in infectious diseases, including COVID-19: a call to action. Mol Psychiatry. 2022 Jan 1;27(1):19–33.
132. Colman L, Delaruelle K, Verniest R, Brake P. Burdens in mental health recovery: causal beliefs and their relation to stigma and help seeking recommendations. International Journal of Social Psyquiatry. 2021;67(8):992–1004.
133. Chekole YA, Tarekegn D. HIV-related perceived stigma and associated factors among patients with HIV, Dilla, Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 2021 Nov 1;71.
134. United Nations. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the elimination of discrimination agains persons affected by leprosy and their family members. Visit to Brasil [Internet]. 2020. Available from: http://portalarquivos2.saude.gov.br/images/pdf/2018/julho/13/Taxa-de- 135. Ahmed S, Chase LE, Wagnild J, Akhter N, Sturridge S, Clarke A, et al. Community health workers and health equity in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review and recommendations for policy and practice. Int J Equity Health. 2022 Dec 1;21(1).
136. Abdel-All M, Angell B, Jan S, Howell M, Howard K, Abimbola S, et al. What do community health workers want? Findings of a discrete choice experiment among Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) in India. BMJ Glob Health. 2019 May 1;4(3).
137. Saprii L, Richards E, Kokho P, Theobald S. Community health workers in rural India: Analysing the opportunities and challenges Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) face in realising their multiple roles. Hum Resour Health. 2015 Dec 9;13(1).
138. Closser S, Shekhawat SS. The family context of ASHA and Anganwadi work in rural Rajasthan: Gender and labour in CHW programmes. Glob Public Health. 2021;17(9):1973–85.
139. Dijkstra JIR, van Brakel WH, van Elteren M, Dijkstra J. Gender and leprosy-related stigma in endemic areas: A systematic review. Lepr Rev. 2017;88:419–40.
140. World Economic Forum. Global Gender Gap Report 2020: Insight Report [Internet]. 2019. 1–371 p. Available from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf 141. Montaño S, Pitanguy J, Lobo T. Las políticas públicas de género: un modelo para armar. El caso de Brasil. 2003.
142. Montaño S, Aranda V, United Nations. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Women and Development Unit. Reformas constitucionales y equidad de género : informe final del Seminario Internacional, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, 21, 22 y 23 de febrero de 2005. CEPAL; 2006. 356 p.
143. Verma C, Rao P. Determinants of rural women´s participation in India´s National Leprosy Erradication Programme. Indian Journal of Leprosy . 2014;84(3):105–10.
144. Theobald S, MacPherson EE, Dean L, Jacobson J, Ducker C, Gyapong M, et al. 20 years of gender mainstreaming in health: Lessons and reflections for the neglected tropical diseases community. BMJ Glob Health. 2017;2(4):1–6.
145. Tolhurst R, Leach B, Price J, Robinson J, Ettore E, Scott-Samuel A, et al. Intersectionality and gender mainstreaming in international health: Using a feminist participatory action research process to analyse voices and debates from the global south and north. Soc Sci Med. 2012 Jun;74(11):1825–32.
146. Hammarström A, Hensing G. How gender theories are used in contemporary public health research. Int J Equity Health. 2018 Mar 20;17(1).
147. Espino FE, Koops V, Manderson L. Community participation and tropical disease control in resource-poor settings. 2004.
148. Cotton S, Puchalski CM, Sherman SN, Mrus JM, Peterson AH, Feinberg J, et al. Spirituality and religion in patients with HIV/AIDS (Journal of General Internal Medicine 24:8 (994)). J Gen Intern Med [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2021 Apr 21];24(8):994. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC1924778/ 149. Ackley C, Elsheikh M, Zaman S. Scoping review of neglected tropical disease interventions and health promotion: A framework for successful ntd interventions as evidenced by the literature. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2021 Jul 1;15(7).
