Tracking Global HIV/AIDS Initiatives and their Impact on the Health System: the experience of the Kyrgyz Republic

This report presents results from a desk-based review and fieldwork conducted between April 2008 and January 2009 in three regions of Kyrgyzstan - Bishkek/Chui, Osh/Jalalabad and Issyk-Kul. The aim of the report is to assess the effects of two global health initiatives (GHIs) for HIV/AIDS the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria (GFATM) and the World Bank\u27s Central Asian AIDS Project (CAAP) at national and sub-national levels, including the effects on HIV/AIDS service scale-up coordination, human resources, and access to HIV/AIDS services

National and subnational HIV/AIDS coordination: are global health initiatives closing the gap between intent and practice?

BACKGROUND: A coordinated response to HIV/AIDS remains one of the 'grand challenges' facing policymakers today. Global health initiatives (GHIs) have the potential both to facilitate and exacerbate coordination at the national and subnational level. Evidence of the effects of GHIs on coordination is beginning to emerge but has hitherto been limited to single-country studies and broad-brush reviews. To date, no study has provided a focused synthesis of the effects of GHIs on national and subnational health systems across multiple countries. To address this deficit, we review primary data from seven country studies on the effects of three GHIs on coordination of HIV/AIDS programmes: the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and the World Bank's HIV/AIDS programmes including the Multi-country AIDS Programme (MAP). METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted at national and subnational levels (179 and 218 respectively) in seven countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America, between 2006 and 2008. Studies explored the development and functioning of national and subnational HIV coordination structures, and the extent to which coordination efforts around HIV/AIDS are aligned with and strengthen country health systems. RESULTS: Positive effects of GHIs included the creation of opportunities for multisectoral participation, greater political commitment and increased transparency among most partners. However, the quality of participation was often limited, and some GHIs bypassed coordination mechanisms, especially at the subnational level, weakening their effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The paper identifies residual national and subnational obstacles to effective coordination and optimal use of funds by focal GHIs, which these GHIs, other donors and country partners need to collectively address

Circus monkeys or change agents? Civil society advocacy for HIV/AIDS in adverse policy environments.

This paper explores the factors enabling and undermining civil society efforts to advocate for policy reforms relating to HIV/AIDS and illicit drugs in three countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine. It examines how political contexts and civil society actors' strengths and weaknesses inhibit or enable advocacy for policy change - issues that are not well understood in relation to specific policy areas such as HIV/AIDS, or particular regions of the world where national policies are believed to be major drivers of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The study is based on in-depth interviews with representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs) (n = 49) and national level informants including government and development partners (n = 22). Our policy analysis identified a culture of fear derived from concerns for personal safety but also risk of losing donor largesse. Relations between CSOs and government were often acrimonious rather than synergistic, and while we found some evidence of CSO collective action, competition for external funding - in particular for HIV/AIDS grants from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was often divisive. Development partners and government tend to construct CSOs as service providers rather than advocates. While some advocacy was tolerated by governments, CSO participation in the policy process was, ultimately, perceived to be tokenistic. This was because there are financial interests in maintaining prohibitionist legislation: efforts to change punitive laws directed at the behaviors of minority groups such as injecting drug users have had limited impact

An assessment of interactions between global health initiatives and country health systems

Since 2000, the emergence of several large disease-specific global health initiatives (GHIs) has changed the way in which international donors provide assistance for public health. Some critics have claimed that these initiatives burden health systems that are already fragile in countries with few resources, whereas others have asserted that weak health systems prevent progress in meeting disease-specific targets. So far, most of the evidence for this debate has been provided by speculation and anecdotes. We use a review and analysis of existing data, and 15 new studies that were submitted to WHO for the purpose of writing this Report to describe the complex nature of the interplay between country health systems and GHIs. We suggest that this Report provides the most detailed compilation of published and emerging evidence so far, and provides a basis for identification of the ways in which GHIs and health systems can interact to mutually reinforce their effects. On the basis of the findings, we make some general recommendations and identify a series of action points for international partners, governments, and other stakeholders that will help ensure that investments in GHIs and country health systems can fulfil their potential to produce comprehensive and lasting results in disease-specific work, and advance the general public health agenda. The target date for achievement of the health-related Millennium Development Goals is drawing close, and the economic downturn threatens to undermine the improvements in health outcomes that have been achieved in the past few years. If adjustments to the interactions between GHIs and country health systems will improve efficiency, equity value for money, and outcomes in global public health, then these opportunities should not be missed