Sharp Alana, OʼHagan Richael, Honermann Brian, Millett Gregorio
amfAR, the Foundation for AIDS Research Public Policy Office, Washington, DC.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2017 Dec 1;76(4):348-355. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000001529.
National Strategic Plans (NSPs) for HIV have become foundational documents that frame responses to HIV. Both Global Fund and PEPFAR require coordination with NSPs as a component of their operations. Despite the role of NSPs in country planning, no rigorous assessment of NSP targets and performance outcomes exists. We performed a quantitative analysis of the quality of NSP indicators and targets and assessed whether historical NSP targets had been achieved.
All targets and indicators from publicly available NSPs from 35 countries are coded as structural, input, output, or impact indicators. Targets were evaluated for specificity, measurability, achievability, relevance, and being time-bound. In addition, progress toward achieving targets was evaluated using historical NSPs from 4 countries.
NSPs emphasized output indicators, but inclusion of structural, input, or impact indicators was highly variable. Most targets lack specificity in target population, numeric baselines or targets, and a data source for monitoring. Targets were, on average, 205% increases or decreases relative to baselines. Alignment with international indicators was variable. Metrics of indicator quality were not associated with NSP funding needs. Monitoring of historical NSP targets was limited by a lack of defined targets and available data.
Country NSPs are limited by a lack of specific, measurable, and achievable targets. The low achievement of targets in historical NSPs corroborates that targets are often poorly defined and aspirational, and not linked to available data sources. NSP quality may be improved through better use of programmatic data and greater inclusion of targets for process measures.
国家艾滋病战略计划(NSPs)已成为制定艾滋病应对措施的基础性文件。全球基金和美国总统艾滋病紧急救援计划(PEPFAR)都要求将与NSPs的协调作为其业务的一个组成部分。尽管NSPs在国家规划中发挥了作用,但目前尚无对NSPs目标及绩效成果的严格评估。我们对NSPs指标和目标的质量进行了定量分析,并评估了历史NSPs目标是否得以实现。
对35个国家公开的NSPs中的所有目标和指标按照结构、投入、产出或影响指标进行编码。对目标的特异性、可衡量性、可实现性、相关性和时效性进行评估。此外,利用4个国家的历史NSPs评估目标实现进度。
NSPs强调产出指标,但结构、投入或影响指标的纳入情况差异很大。大多数目标在目标人群、数字基线或目标以及监测数据源方面缺乏特异性。目标相对于基线平均增长或下降205%。与国际指标的一致性各不相同。指标质量的衡量标准与NSPs资金需求无关。对历史NSPs目标的监测因缺乏明确目标和可用数据而受到限制。
国家NSPs因缺乏具体、可衡量和可实现的目标而受到限制。历史NSPs中目标的低达成率证实了目标往往定义不明确且过高,与可用数据源无关。通过更好地利用项目数据和更多纳入过程指标目标,NSPs质量可能会得到提高。