Dataset Information

Current allocations and target apportionment for HIV testing and treatment services for marginalized populations: characterizing PEPFAR investment and strategy.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is a large bilateral funder of the global HIV response whose policy decisions on key populations (KPs) programming determine the shape of the key populations' response in many countries. Understanding the size and relative share of PEPFAR funds going to KPs and the connection between PEPFAR's targets and resulting programming is crucial for successfully serving key populations.

Methods

Publicly available PEPFAR budgets for key populations' services were assessed by country and geographical region for all 52 countries with budget data in fiscal year (FY) 2020. For the 23 countries which completed a full planning process in FY 2018 and 2019, PEPFAR targets for HIV testing and treatment initiation for key populations were assessed. Expenditures for KP programming were calculated to determine whether shifts in targets translated into programming. Implementing partners were characterized by the level of specialization using the share of assigned targets made up by KPs. The average target per year and implementing partner was calculated for each KP group and indicator.

Results

PEPFAR country KP budgets ranged from US$35,000 to $15.2 million, and the proportion of funding to key populations varied by region, with Eastern and Southern African countries having the lowest proportion. Between FY 2018 and 2019, the KP targets for HIV testing and treatment among KPs increased, whereas expenditures on key populations decreased from US$115.4 to $111.0 million. Of the 11 countries with an increase in HIV testing targets, seven had a decrease in KP expenditures. Of the nine countries with an increase in treatment initiation targets, five had a decrease in KP expenditures. The proportion of targets assigned to partners which do not specialize in key populations increased from FY 2018 to 2019.

Conclusions

Current key population policies have not resulted in a tight connection between targets and expenditures. This includes assigning a large proportion of key populations programming to partners who do not specialize in key populations, which may weaken the performance management role of the targets. These results signal that a new approach to key populations programming is needed.

SUBMITTER: Jones A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242967 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recently, patient engagement has been identified as a promising strategy for supporting healthcare planning. However, the context and structure of universalistic, "one-size-fits-all" approaches often used for patient engagement may not enable diverse patients to participate in decision-making about programs intended to meet their needs. Specifically, standard patient engagement approaches are gender-blind and might not facilitate the engagement of those marginalized by, for example, substance use, low income, experiences of violence, homelessness, and/or mental health challenges-highly gendered health and social experiences. The project's purpose was to develop a heuristic model to assist planners to engage patients who are not traditionally included in healthcare planning.Using a qualitative research approach, we reviewed literature and conducted interviews with patients and healthcare planners regarding engaging marginalized populations in health services planning. From these inputs, we created a model and planning manual to assist healthcare planners to engage marginalized patients in health services planning, which we piloted in two clinical programs undergoing health services design. The findings from the pilots were used to refine the model.The analysis of the interviews and literature identified power and gender as barriers to participation, and generated suggestions to support diverse populations both to attend patient engagement events and to participate meaningfully. Engaging marginalized populations cannot be reduced to a single defined process, but instead needs to be understood as an iterative process of fitting engagement methods to a particular situation. Underlying this process are principles for meaningfully engaging marginalized people in healthcare planning.A one-size-fits-all approach to patient engagement is not appropriate given patients' diverse barriers to meaningful participation in healthcare planning. Instead, planners need a repertoire of skills and strategies to align the purpose of engagement with the capacities and needs of patient participants. Just as services need to meet diverse patients' needs, so too must patient engagement experiences.

Project description:BackgroundPoor health outcomes amongst marginalized groups result in part from health inequities related to social and structural determinants of health. Marginalized people report higher incidences of comorbidities, chronic disease and adverse health behaviours than their nondisadvantaged peers. The objective of this review is to examine marginalized Australians' experiences of and access to community-based primary health services in urban locations.MethodsA systematic search incorporating related MeSH terms and synonyms pertaining to marginalized Australian populations and their health-seeking was conducted across seven databases. We included qualitative studies that reported experiences of health-seeking within community-based primary health care in metropolitan Australia. Participant populations experiencing marginalization due to social stigma and isolation, early-life disadvantage, poor health and/or financial hardship were included. A meta-ethnographic framework was used to synthesize themes across selected studies and researcher triangulation was employed to develop higher-order themes.ResultsSearch results revealed 26 studies included for critical appraisal and synthesis. Seven higher-order themes were developed describing experiences of health service engagement amongst marginalized groups: (1) Understanding the patient within the context of family and community, (2) Health and cultural beliefs influence health-seeking, (3) Lack of information and poor cultural competence limit utilization of services, (4) Motivation for treatment influences health service engagement, (5) Accessing services, a spectrum of experience-from discrimination to validation, (6) Navigating a complex system in a complex society, (7) Preferences for health care and expectations for systemic change.ConclusionMarginalized Australians experience health disadvantage across micro, meso and macro levels of health system navigation and commonalities in health-seeking were identified across each of the distinct marginalized groups in our analysis. This review outlines important areas of consideration for health care provision and policy development essential to helping address health inequities for a diversity of marginalized populations.Patient or public contributionWhilst patient voices were reported across all studies included within this review, no further patient or public contribution applies to this study.

Project description:BackgroundThe combination of optimized contribution dynamic selection and various mating schemes was investigated over seven generations for a typical tree breeding scenario. The allocation of mates was optimized using a simulated annealing algorithm for various object functions including random mating (RM), positive assortative mating (PAM) and minimization of pair-wise coancestry between mates (MCM) all combined with minimization of variance in family size and coancestry. The present study considered two levels of heritability (0.05 and 0.25), two restrictions on relatedness (group coancestry; 1 and 2%) and two maximum permissible numbers of crosses in each generation (100 and 400). The infinitesimal genetic model was used to simulate the genetic architecture of the trait that was the subject of selection. A framework of the long term genetic contribution of ancestors was used to examine the impacts of the mating schemes on population parameters.ResultsMCM schemes produced on average, an increased rate of genetic gain in the breeding population, although the difference between schemes was small but significant after seven generations (up to 7.1% more than obtained with RM). In addition, MCM reduced the level of inbreeding by as much as 37% compared with RM, although the rate of inbreeding was similar after three generations of selection. PAM schemes yielded levels of genetic gain similar to those produced by RM, but the increase in the level of inbreeding was substantial (up to 43%).ConclusionThe main reason why MCM schemes yielded higher genetic gains was the improvement in managing the long term genetic contribution of founders in the population; this was achieved by connecting unrelated families. In addition, the accumulation of inbreeding was reduced by MCM schemes since the variance in long term genetic contributions of founders was smaller than in the other schemes. Consequently, by combining an MCM scheme with an algorithm that optimizes contributions of the selected individuals, a higher long term response is obtained while reducing the risk within the breeding program.

Project description:Many institutions worldwide are considering how to include uncertainty about future changes in sea-levels and storm surges into their investment decisions regarding large capital infrastructures. Here we examine how to characterize deeply uncertain climate change projections to support such decisions using Robust Decision Making analysis. We address questions regarding how to confront the potential for future changes in low probability but large impact flooding events due to changes in sea-levels and storm surges. Such extreme events can affect investments in infrastructure but have proved difficult to consider in such decisions because of the deep uncertainty surrounding them. This study utilizes Robust Decision Making methods to address two questions applied to investment decisions at the Port of Los Angeles: (1) Under what future conditions would a Port of Los Angeles decision to harden its facilities against extreme flood scenarios at the next upgrade pass a cost-benefit test, and (2) Do sea-level rise projections and other information suggest such conditions are sufficiently likely to justify such an investment? We also compare and contrast the Robust Decision Making methods with a full probabilistic analysis. These two analysis frameworks result in similar investment recommendations for different idealized future sea-level projections, but provide different information to decision makers and envision different types of engagement with stakeholders. In particular, the full probabilistic analysis begins by aggregating the best scientific information into a single set of joint probability distributions, while the Robust Decision Making analysis identifies scenarios where a decision to invest in near-term response to extreme sea-level rise passes a cost-benefit test, and then assembles scientific information of differing levels of confidence to help decision makers judge whether or not these scenarios are sufficiently likely to justify making such investments. Results highlight the highly-localized and context dependent nature of applying Robust Decision Making methods to inform investment decisions.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough donor transitions from HIV programs are more frequent, little research exists seeking to understand the perceptions of patients and providers on this process. Between 2015 and 2017, PEPFAR implemented the ´geographic prioritization´ (GP) policy in Uganda whereby it shifted support from 734 'low-volume' facilities and 10 districts with low HIV burden and intensified support in select facilities in high-burden districts. Our analysis intends to explore patient and provider perspectives on the impact of loss of PEPFAR support on HIV services in transitioned health facilities in Uganda.MethodsWe report qualitative findings from a larger mixed-methods evaluation. Six facilities were purposefully selected as case studies seeking to ensure diversity in facility ownership, size, and geographic location. Five out of the six selected facilities had experienced transition. A total of 62 in-depth interviews were conducted in June 2017 (round 1) and November 2017 (round 2) with facility in-charges (n = 13), ART clinic managers (n = 12), representatives of PEPFAR implementing organizations (n = 14), district health managers (n = 23) and 12 patient focus group discussions (n = 72) to elicit perceived effects of transition on HIV service delivery. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsWhile core HIV services, such as testing and treatment, offered by case-study facilities prior to transition were sustained, patients and providers reported changes in the range of HIV services offered and a decline in the quality of HIV services offered post-transition. Specifically, in some facilities we found that specialized pediatric HIV services ceased, free HIV testing services stopped, nutrition support to HIV clients ended and the 'mentor mother' ART adherence support mechanism was discontinued. Patients at three ART-providing facilities reported that HIV service provision had become less patient-centred compared to the pre-transition period. Patients at some facilities perceived waiting times at clinics to have become longer, stock-outs of anti-retroviral medicines to have been more frequent and out-of-pocket expenditure to have increased post-transition.ConclusionsParticipants perceived transition to have had the effect of narrowing the scope and quality of HIV services offered by case-study facilities due to a reduction in HIV funding as well as the loss of the additional personnel previously hired by the PEPFAR implementing organizations for HIV programming. Replacing the HIV programming gap left by PEPFAR in transition districts with Uganda government services is critical to the attainment of 90-90-90 targets in Uganda.

Project description:BackgroundHealth disparities exist in end-of-life (EOL) care. Individuals and communities that are marginalized due to their race, ethnicity, income, geographic location, language, or cultural background experience systemic barriers to access and receive lower quality EOL care. Advance care planning (ACP) prepares patients and their caregivers for EOL decision-making for the purpose of promoting high-quality EOL care. Low engagement in ACP among marginalized populations is thought to have contributed to disparity in EOL care. To advance health equity and deliver care that aligns with the goals and values of each individual, there is a need to improve ACP for marginalized populations.AimTo describe how patients from marginalized populations experience and perceive ACP.MethodsWe used an interpretive phenomenological approach with semi-structured qualitative interviews. Participants were recruited from four primary care clinics and one nursing home in a US Pacific Northwest city. Thirty patients from marginalized populations with serious illness participated in individual interviews between January and December 2021. Participants were asked to describe their experiences and perceptions about ACP during the interviews.ResultsThe mean age of 30 participants was 69.5; 19 (63%) were women; 12 (40%) identified as Asian/Pacific Islanders, 10 (33%) as Black; and 9 (30%) were non-native English speakers. Our three key findings were: 1) patients from marginalized populations are willing to engage in ACP; 2) there were multiple obstacles to engaging in ACP; and 3) meaningful ACP conversations could happen when clinicians listen. Although participants from marginalized populations were willing to engage in ACP, a fragmented and restrictive healthcare system and clinicians' biased behaviors or lack of interest in knowing their patients were obstacles. Participants who felt their clinicians took time and listened were encouraged to engage in ACP.ConclusionPatients from marginalized populations are willing to engage in ACP conversations despite a common belief otherwise. However, obstacles to meaningful ACP conversations with healthcare providers exist. Clinicians need to be aware of these obstacles and listen to build trust and engage marginalized patients in mutually meaningful ACP conversations.