Abstract:
Introduction: Drawing on qualitative research in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, this article explores how men who engage in sex with other men perceive their interactions with healthcare providers, and how they would prefer healthcare services to be organised and delivered. The paper describes the strengths and weaknesses men associate with private and public healthcare; the advantages and disadvantages they associate with dedicated clinics for sexual minority persons; what they conceive of as good healthcare services; and how they would characterise a good healthcare worker. The paper also presents recommendations made by study participants. These include the view that health services for same-sex attracted men should be developed and delivered in collaboration with such men themselves; that health workers should receive training on the medical needs as well as the overall circumstances of same-sex attracted men; and that there should be mechanisms that make healthcare available to poorer community members. We analyse men's views and recommendations in the light of theoretical work on trust and discuss the ways in which same sex attracted men look for signs that healthcare workers and healthcare services are trustworthy. Methods: A qualitative study was carried out among healthcare workers in the cities of Dar es Salaam and Tanga in Tanzania between August 2018 and October 2019. Fieldwork entailed qualitative interviewing, focus group discussions and participant observation. A purposive sampling strategy was used to select study participants who varied with respect to age, education level, work experience, and the type and location of the facilities they worked in. Twenty-four interviews and six focus group discussions were conducted. Results: This paper describes four different discourses that were identified among healthcare workers with respect to their perception of access to healthcare services for SSAM. One held that access to healthcare was not a major problem at all, another that some SSAM did not utilize healthcare services although they were available, a third that some healthcare workers prevented SSAM from gaining access to healthcare and a fourth that healthcare for gender and sexual minority persons was made difficult by structural barriers. Conclusion: Although these are four rather different takes on the prevailing circumstances with respect to healthcare access for SSAM, we suggest that they may all be ‘true’ in the sense that they grasp and highlight different aspects of the same realities.
