Lessons learned from stakeholder-driven sustainability analysis of six national HIV programmes

Bibliographic Data

ID11491866
AuthorsItamar Katz (0000-0001-8266-1360, Abt Global (United States), corresponding author), Douglas Glandon (0000-0003-2305-7424, Office of AIDS Research), W Wong, Wilson W Wong (0000-0001-8394-889X, Office of AIDS Research), Brima Kargbo (Office of AIDS Research), Regina Ombam (Office of AIDS Research), Sonal Singh (0000-0003-0535-4046, Office of AIDS Research), Leslie Ramsammy (Office of AIDS Research), A Tal-Dia (Office of AIDS Research), Ibrahima Seck (0000-0002-9706-5913, Office of AIDS Research), John Stephen Osika (Office of AIDS Research)
Year2014
Volume29
Issue3
Pages379-387
Publication date2014-05-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth Policy and Planning (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0268-1080 • E-ISSN: 1460-2237
PublisherOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/heapol/czt024
PMID23612848
OpenAlexW2103901958
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited9

BACKGROUND: In light of the decline in donor HIV funding, HIV programmes increasingly need to assess their available and potential resources and maximize their utilization. This article presents lessons learned related to how countries have addressed the sustainability of HIV programmes in a stakeholder-driven sustainability analysis. METHODOLOGY: During HIV/AIDS Programme Sustainability Analysis Tool (HAPSAT) applications in six countries (Benin, Guyana, Kenya, Lesotho, Sierra Leone and South Sudan), stakeholders identified key sustainability challenges for their HIV responses. Possible policy approaches were prepared, and those related to prioritization and resource mobilization are analysed in this article. RESULTS: The need to prioritize evidence-based interventions and apply efficiency measures is being accepted by countries. Five of the six countries in this study requested that the HAPSAT team prepare 'prioritization' strategies. Countries recognize the need to prepare for an alternative to 'universal access by 2015', acknowledging that their capacity might be insufficient to reach such high-coverage levels by then. There is further acceptance of the importance of reaching the most-at-risk, marginalized populations, as seen, for example, in South Sudan and Sierra Leone. However, the pace at which resources are shifting towards these populations is slow. Finally, only two of the six countries, Kenya and Benin, chose to examine options for generating additional financial resources beyond donor funding. In Kenya, three non-donor sources were recommended, yet even if all were to be implemented, it would cover only 25% of the funding needed. CONCLUSIONS: Countries are increasingly willing to address the challenges of HIV programme sustainability, yet in different ways and with varying urgency. To secure achievements made to date and maximize future impact, countries would benefit from strengthening their strategic plans, operational plans and funding proposals with concrete timelines and responsibilities for addressing sustainability issues.

Business · Developing country · Development economics · Economic growth · Economics · Political science · Psychological intervention · Public relations · Sierra leone · Stakeholder · Sustainability · Universal design · Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health · HIV/AIDS Impact and Responses · HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions · Medicine