The history and challenge of HIV prevention.

Duke Global Health Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 39.21). 09/2008; 372(9637):475-88. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60884-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The HIV/AIDS pandemic has become part of the contemporary global landscape. Few predicted its effect on mortality and morbidity or its devastating social and economic consequences, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Successful responses have addressed sensitive social factors surrounding HIV prevention, such as sexual behaviour, drug use, and gender equalities, countered stigma and discrimination, and mobilised affected communities; but such responses have been few and far between. Only in recent years has the international response to HIV prevention gathered momentum, mainly due to the availability of treatment with antiretroviral drugs, the recognition that the pandemic has both development and security implications, and a substantial increase in financial resources brought about by new funders and funding mechanisms. We now require an urgent and revitalised global movement for HIV prevention that supports a combination of behavioural, structural, and biomedical approaches and is based on scientifically derived evidence and the wisdom and ownership of communities.

  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Contemporary HIV-related theory and policy emphasize the importance of addressing the social drivers of HIV risk and vulnerability for a long-term response. Consequently, increasing attention is being given to social and structural interventions, and to social outcomes of HIV interventions. Appropriate indicators for social outcomes are needed in order to institutionalize the commitment to addressing social outcomes. This paper critically assesses the current state of social indicators within international HIV/AIDS monitoring and evaluation frameworks. Methods: We analyzed the indicator frameworks of six international organizations involved in efforts to improve and synchronize the monitoring and evaluation of the HIV/AIDS response. Our analysis classifies the 328 unique indicators according to what they measure and assesses the degree to which they offer comprehensive measurement across three dimensions: domains of the social context, levels of change and organizational capacity. Results and discussion: The majority of indicators focus on individual-level (clinical and behavioural) interventions and outcomes, neglecting structural interventions, community interventions and social outcomes (e.g. stigma reduction; community capacity building; policy-maker sensitization). The main tool used to address social aspects of HIV/AIDS is the disaggregation of data by social group. This raises three main limitations. Indicator frameworks do not provide comprehensive coverage of the diverse social drivers of the epidemic, particularly neglecting criminalization, stigma, discrimination and gender norms. There is a dearth of indicators for evaluating the social impacts of HIV interventions. Indicators of organizational capacity focus on capacity to effectively deliver and manage clinical services, neglecting capacity to respond appropriately and sustainably to complex social contexts. Conclusions: Current indicator frameworks cannot adequately assess the social outcomes of HIV interventions. This limits knowledge about social drivers and inhibits the institutionalization of social approaches within the HIV/AIDS response. We conclude that indicator frameworks should expand to offer a more comprehensive range of social indicators for monitoring and evaluation and to include indicators of organizational capacity to tackle social drivers. While such expansion poses challenges for standardization and coordination, we argue that the complexity of interventions producing social outcomes necessitates capacity for flexibility and local tailoring in monitoring and evaluation.
    Journal of the International AIDS Society 08/2014; 17(1):19073. · 4.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bureaucrats working in international intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) regularly help states design new IGOs. Sometimes international bureaucrats possess limited discretion in institutional design; sometimes, they enjoy broad discretion. In fact, they gain discretion even when they openly oppose state preferences. This contravenes conventional thinking about delegation: discretion should decrease as preference divergence between states and international bureaucrats increases. We develop a principal-agent theory of how much discretion states grant to international bureaucrats in the design of new IGOs. This is novel: while principal-agent theories of international delegation are common, scholars have not analyzed principal-agent relationships in the creation of new IGOs. We argue that even an international bureaucracy that disagrees with states' design preferences may enjoy substantial design leeway, because of states' need for bureaucratic expertise. In developing this argument, we employ a formal principal-agent model, case studies, and an original data set.
    International Organization 01/2014; 68(01):177-209. · 2.98 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Oct 8, 2014