Investment in HIV/AIDS programs: Does it help strengthen health systems in developing countries?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is increasing debate about whether the scaled-up investment in HIV/AIDS programs is strengthening or weakening the fragile health systems of many developing countries. This article examines and assesses the evidence and proposes ways forward.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Considerably increased resources have been brought into countries for HIV/AIDS programs by major Global Health Initiatives. Among the positive impacts are the increased awareness of and priority given to public health by governments. In addition, services to people living with HIV/AIDS have rapidly expanded. In many countries infrastructure and laboratories have been strengthened, and in some, primary health care services have been improved. The effect of AIDS on the health work force has been lessened by the provision of antiretroviral treatment to HIV-infected health care workers, by training, and, to an extent, by task-shifting. However, there are reports of concerns, too – among them, a temporal association between increasing AIDS funding and stagnant reproductive health funding, and accusations that scarce personnel are siphoned off from other health care services by offers of better-paying jobs in HIV/AIDS programs. Unfortunately, there is limited hard evidence of these health system impacts.</p> <p>Because service delivery for AIDS has not yet reached a level that could conceivably be considered "as close to Universal Access as possible," countries and development partners must maintain the momentum of investment in HIV/AIDS programs. At the same time, it should be recognized that global action for health is even more underfunded than is the response to the HIV epidemic. The real issue is therefore not whether to fund AIDS or health systems, but how to increase funding for both.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>The evidence is mixed – mostly positive but some negative – as to the impact on health systems of the scaled-up responses to HIV/AIDS driven primarily by global health partnerships. Current scaled-up responses to HIV/AIDS must be maintained and strengthened. Instead of endless debate about the comparative advantages of vertical and horizontal approaches, partners should focus on the best ways for investments in response to HIV to also broadly strengthen the primary health care systems.</p

Investment in HIV/AIDS programs: Does it help strengthen health systems in developing countries?

Background: There is increasing debate about whether the scaled-up investment in HIV/AIDS programs is strengthening or weakening the fragile health systems of many developing countries. This article examines and assesses the evidence and proposes ways forward. Discussion: Considerably increased resources have been brought into countries for HIV/AIDS programs by major Global Health Initiatives. Among the positive impacts are the increased awareness of and priority given to public health by governments. In addition, services to people living with HIV/AIDS have rapidly expanded. In many countries infrastructure and laboratories have been strengthened, and in some, primary health care services have been improved. The effect of AIDS on the health work force has been lessened by the provision of antiretroviral treatment to HIV-infected health care workers, by training, and, to an extent, by task-shifting. However, there are reports of concerns, too – among them, a temporal association between increasing AIDS funding and stagnant reproductive health funding, and accusations that scarce personnel are siphoned off from other health care services by offers of better-paying jobs in HIV/AIDS programs. Unfortunately, there is limited hard evidence of these health system impacts. Because service delivery for AIDS has not yet reached a level that could conceivably be considered &quot;as close to Universal Access as possible,&quot; countries and development partners must maintain the momentum of investment in HIV/AIDS programs. At the same time, it should be recognized that global action for health is even more underfunded than is the response to the HIV epidemic. The real issue is therefore not whether to fund AIDS or health systems, but how to increase funding for both. Summary: The evidence is mixed – mostly positive but some negative – as to the impact on health systems of the scaled-up responses to HIV/AIDS driven primarily by global health partnerships. Current scaled-up responses to HIV/AIDS must be maintained and strengthened. Instead of endless debate about the comparative advantages of vertical and horizontal approaches, partners should focus on the best ways for investments in response to HIV to also broadly strengthen the primary health care systems

Implementation of co-trimoxazole prophylaxis and isoniazid preventive therapy for people living with HIV

OBJECTIVE: To measure progress in implementing co-trimoxazole prophylaxis (CTXp) (trimethoprim plus sulfamethoxazole) and isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) policy recommendations, identify barriers to the development of national policies and pinpoint challenges to implementation. METHODS: In 2007 we conducted by e-mail a cross-sectional survey of World Health Organization (WHO) HIV/AIDS programme officers in 69 selected countries having a high burden of infection with HIV or HIV-associated tuberculosis (TB). The specially-designed, self-administered questionnaire contained items covering national policies for CTXp and IPT in people living with HIV, current level of implementation and barriers to developing or implementing these policies. FINDINGS: The 41 (59%) respondent countries, representing all WHO regions, comprised 85% of the global burden of HIV-associated TB and 82% of the global burden of HIV infection. Thirty-eight countries (93%) had an established national policy for CTXp, but only 66% of them (25/38) had achieved nationwide implementation. For IPT, 21 of 41 countries (51%) had a national policy but only 28% of them (6/21) had achieved nationwide implementation. Despite significant progress in the development of CTXp policy, the limited availability of co-trimoxazole for this indication and inadequate systems to manage drug supply impeded nationwide implementation. Inadequate intensified tuberculosis case-finding and concerns regarding isoniazid resistance were challenges to the development and implementation of national IPT policies. CONCLUSION: Despite progress in implementing WHO-recommended CTXp and IPT policies, these interventions remain underused. Urgent steps are required to facilitate the development and implementation of these policies