Financing the Response to HIV in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries

Abstract

The most striking finding is the mismatch between the types of HIV epidemics and the allocation of resources. The current global economic recession will force countries to rethink national strategies, especially in low-income countries with high aid dependency. Mapping HIV expenditures provides crucial guidance for reallocation of resources and supports evidence-based decisions. Now more than ever, countries need to know and act on their epidemics and give priority to the most effective programmatic services.

The cost and cost‐effectiveness of gender‐responsive interventions for HIV: a systematic review

“…Yet, gender inequalities in these areas underscore the need to ensure their gender-responsive delivery, particularly given the important share of HIV budgets that they claim with about 50% of HIV spending going to treatment and care across low- and middle-income countries [93,94]. …”

Public sector services for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV infection: a micro-costing survey in Namibia and Rwanda

“…In a study of 30 countries, they were estimated to be less than 21 United States dollars (US$) per capita. 5,6 The prevention and control of HIV infection in such countries are also heavily dependent on external funding 7 that may not be sustainable in the long term. [8][9][10] If investment in efforts to eliminate new HIV infections among children by 2015 11 is to be increased, further data on the costs of PMTCT interventions must be collected.…”

Effectiveness of Respondent-Driven Sampling to Recruit High Risk Heterosexual Men Who Have Multiple Female Sexual Partners: Differences in HIV Prevalence and Sexual Risk Behaviours Measured at Two Time Points

“…Regular HIV bio-behavioural surveillance surveys (BBSS) among HRH men will provide a means to monitor their HIV prevalence and risk behaviour trends, and to improve the provision and assessment of HIV prevention strategies for this population. This is especially important given the recent global economic crisis and dwindling global and local government funding for HIV [9] that will most likely result in a prioritization of HIV treatment over prevention [10].…”