Evaluation of the community response to HIV and AIDS: Learning from a portfolio approach

a World Bank , Washington , District of Columbia , USA.
AIDS Care (Impact Factor: 1.6). 06/2013; 25 Suppl 1(Suppl. 1):S7-S19. DOI: 10.1080/09540121.2013.764395
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT While communities have played a large role in the HIV/AIDS response, their contributions and innovative approaches to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support have not always been the focus of systematic and rigorous evaluations. To address this gap, the World Bank led an evaluation of the impact of the community response to HIV, including country studies in Burkina Faso, India, Kenya, Lesotho, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa and Zimbabwe over a three-year period. Due to the complexity and varied nature of community responses, the evaluation attempted to determine the results that investments have produced at the community level by applying a mixed method approach: Randomized Controlled Trials, quasi-experimental studies, qualitative studies and analytical studies including financial data. Specifically, the studies examined a typology of community response and the flow of funds to community-based organizations, while investigating the impact of the community responses on (1) knowledge and behavior, (2) use of services, (3) social transformation, and (4) HIV incidence. This editorial summarizes the results of this evaluation portfolio, finding that investments in communities have produced significant results, including, improved knowledge and behavior, and increased use of health services, and even decreased HIV incidence. Evidence on social transformation was more mixed, with community groups found to be effective only in some settings. Each study in the evaluation provides a partial view of how communities shape the local response; however, taken together they corroborate the common wisdom that communities can be a vital part of the global HIV/AIDS response.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We used baseline data, collected in July–September 2009, from a randomized controlled trial of a cash transfer program for vulnerable children in eastern Zimbabwe to investigate the effectiveness, coverage, and efficiency of census- and community-based targeting methods for reaching vulnerable children. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with beneficiaries and other stakeholders were used to explore community perspectives on targeting. Community members reported that their participation improved ownership and reduced conflict and jealousy. However, all the methods failed to target a large proportion of vulnerable children and there was poor agreement between the community- and census-based methods.
    World Development 02/2014; 54(100). DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.09.002 · 1.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective Building a successful combination prevention program requires understanding the community’s local epidemiological profile, the social community norms that shape vulnerability to HIV and access to care, and the available community resources. We carried out a situational analysis in order to shape a comprehensive HIV prevention program that address local barriers to care at multiple contextual levels in the North West Province of South Africa. Method The situational analysis was conducted in two sub-districts in 2012 and guided by an adaptation of WHO’s Strategic Approach, a predominantly qualitative method, including observation of service delivery points and in-depth interviews and focus groups with local leaders, providers, and community members, in order to recommend context-specific HIV prevention strategies. Analysis began during fieldwork with nightly discussions of findings and continued with coding original textual data from the fieldwork notebooks and a select number of recorded interviews. Results We conducted over 200 individual and group interviews and gleaned four principal social barriers to HIV prevention and care, including: HIV fatalism, traditional gender norms, HIV-related stigma, and challenges with communication around HIV, all of which fuel the HIV epidemic. At the different levels of response needed to stem the epidemic, we found evidence of national policies and programs that are mitigating the social risk factors but little community-based responses that address social risk factors to HIV. Conclusions Understanding social and structural barriers to care helped shape our comprehensive HIV prevention program, which address the four ‘themes’ identified into each component of the program. Activities are underway to engage communities, offer community-based testing in high transmission areas, community stigma reduction, and a positive health, dignity and prevention program for stigma reduction and improve communication skills. The situational analysis process successfully shaped key programmatic decisions and cultivated a deeper collaboration with local stakeholders to support program implementation.
    PLoS ONE 07/2014; 9(7):e102904. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0102904 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Preview (2 Sources)

Available from