book icon

HIV Prevention Knowledge Base

A Collection of Research and Tools to Help You Find What Works in Prevention

Structural Interventions: An Overview of Structural Approaches to HIV Prevention

I. Definition of the Prevention Area

Structural approaches reduce an individual’s HIV-related vulnerability by creating the conditions in which people can adopt safer behaviors. For example, making micro-finance loans available to poor women can reduce their need to engage in transactional sex, which may reduce their vulnerability to HIV infection.

Structural approaches include social, economic, and political interventions that can improve public health outcomes by increasing the willingness and ability of individuals to practice prevention.

Auerbach and colleagues (2009) categorize structural interventions that focus on three areas of change:

  • Social change: These approaches focus on factors affecting multiple groups (e.g., a region or country as a whole), such as legal reform, stigma reduction, and efforts to cultivate strong leadership on AIDS.
  • Change within specific groups: These approaches address social structures that create vulnerability among specific populations, such as men who have sex with men, mine workers, young women, or poor women. Examples include efforts to organize and mobilize sex workers, micro-finance programs for poor women, and interventions to change harmful male norms.
  • Harm reduction or health-seeking behavior change: These approaches work to make harm-reduction technologies available to those in need and to change rules, services, and attitudes about these technologies. Examples include efforts to provide safe housing for drug users and 100 percent condom use campaigns.

II. Epidemiological Justification for the Prevention Area

Structural approaches to HIV prevention represent an evolving area of prevention. There is less consensus about this area, yet many agree that structural factors may in part help explain the existence of hyper-epidemics, such as those seen in Southern Africa. The most effective structural approaches will use a combination of strategies that are tailored to a given social, political, economic, and epidemic context.

View Combination Approaches to HIV Prevention


III. Core Programmatic Components

The nature of an epidemic may necessitate different types of interventions. For example, concentrated epidemics may best be addressed through legal and policy approaches, such as legalizing needle and syringe exchange, facilitating and enforcing condom use by brothel clients, and legalizing same-sex practices.

In more generalized epidemics and hyper-endemic areas, interventions may be broadened to include cultural, social, and economic approaches, such as interventions to reduce the economic dependency of women on men and/or to reduce violence against women. Other approaches might address the social norms that affect sexual risk-taking or enact social protections for poor and/or affected people.

An example of a group that uses a broad range of innovative approaches for prevention is the aids2031 initiative. The organization promotes enforcement of a minimum legislative standard, which includes the following provisions: 1) decriminalize HIV status, transmission, and exposure; 2) decriminalize same-sex practices and sexual diversity; 3) decriminalize sex work; 4) ensure access to harm reduction services for drug users; 5) guarantee equal rights of people living with AIDS; and 6) equalize men’s and women’s legal rights.


IV. Current Status of Implementation Experience

Structural approaches to HIV prevention have been employed throughout the epidemic, but such strategies have only recently emerged as an internationally recognized, distinct area of HIV prevention. Although there is a growing literature describing and categorizing structural approaches, few programs have been rigorously evaluated. This remains an emerging programmatic area, and work is needed to reach consensus on how to integrate structural approaches into comprehensive HIV prevention.

Quantifying the effectiveness of structural intervention programs can be difficult for several reasons: there is no direct, one-to-one relationship between structural interventions and HIV incidence; structural interventions are not generally amenable to randomization; and causal pathways from intervention to AIDS outcome are usually indirect and complex. It will be necessary to develop evaluation methodologies not classically used within public health, and to engage more social scientists in program design and evaluation.

Updated: March 2011