Qualitative research explores hypertension management challenges among PLHIV, indicating socio-economic factors impact adherence.
Background In Cameroon, people living with HIV (PLHIV) receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) have a high prevalence of hypertension (HTN) and an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality. Managing HTN in this population is a major challenge. This qualitative study, conducted at the Yaoundé Central Hospital, Cameroon, in 2024, explored the barriers and facilitators to hypertension management in PLHIV. Methods The study involved 15 participants, including 9 PLHIV diagnosed with hypertension, 03 healthcare providers, and 03 psychosocial agents. A quota sampling approach was used to recruit participants. Data was collected through 12 in-depth interviews and a focus group with 3 psychosocial agents. Data collection took place over a period of 5 months, from January to May 2024. A semistructured interview guide was used to explore participants’ perceptions of hypertension management. Data analysis was based on the COM-B model to interpret the results, using NVivo software. Results Identified barriers included a lack of knowledge about hypertension, difficulties in accessing medications due to high costs, and psychosocial issues such as family stress affecting treatment adherence. Additionally, cultural and religious beliefs, such as a preference for traditional treatments and miraculous healings, limited engagement with conventional medicine. However, facilitators included regular visits for ART follow-up, which allowed for hypertension screening, and financial support from families that facilitated access to treatment. The proactive involvement of healthcare providers and continuous communication also contributed to treatment adherence. Conclusion The study highlights the need for interventions that address socio-economic, cultural, and medical barriers to improve hypertension management in PLHIV, particularly through enhancing access to care and raising awareness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: