Relative Response

Ranking Country Responses to HIV and Aids

Bibliographic Data

ID12440296
AuthorsCosmas Desmond (0000-0002-3500-0196, corresponding author), Chris Desmond, Eva Lieberman (0000-0001-9242-5687), Anita Alban, Anna Mia Ekström (0000-0002-3912-1171), Anna-Mia Ekström
Year2008
Volume10
Issue2
Pages105-105
Publication date2008-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth and Human Rights (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1079-0969 • E-ISSN: 2150-4113
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/20460106
PMID20845862
OpenAlexW2419355249
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited2

The aim of this article is to support efforts to hold governments accountable for their commitments to respond to HIV and AIDS. It describes a new approach to ranking countries' responses in order to facilitate cross-country comparisons. The method uses the United Nations General/Assembly Speecial Session on HIV/AIDS (UNGASS) Declaration of Commitment as its point of departure and was designed to rank countries in terms of their efforts to fight HIV and AIDS. Three indicators of the country response were analyzed. (1) prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) coverage; (2) antiretroviral (ARV) coverage; and (3) the ratio of orphans to non-orphans attending school An assessment of this nature must acknowledge the unique situation of each country, depending on its infrastructure and access to resources. To account for these differences, a regression analysis with contextual control variables was carried out to identify the variation resulting from controllable factors. It is this variation which is used to examine countries' relative response to HIV as it considers what was actually achieved relative to what was expected given the context. The results highlight the efforts of not only some well-reputed, strong actors but also some unexpected front-runners. The results also point to a group of countries which are lagging behind in all regards. Comparisons between the three indicators show great variations in the focus of countries' efforts. Rating countries' relative response to HIV highlghts countries that do well in spite of diffcult circumstances. The article argues that these "relative overachievers" should be examined more closely so that lessons may be learnt from their efforts. The rating also draws attention to countries where the response is comparatively weak, and where governments, as lead actors in the AIDS partnership, bear the greatest responsibility

Business · Context (archaeology · Declaration · Developing country · Development economics · Economic growth · Economics · Geography · Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV · Lagging · Order (exchange · Political science · Ranking (information retrieval · Computer Science · HIV/AIDS Impact and Responses · International Development and Aid · Law · Medicine · Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare · Virology